The Akron Legal News

Login | March 29, 2024

Appellate court rejects appeal from man convicted of vehicular homicide, assault

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News

Published: April 28, 2015

Three judges in the 9th District Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Medina County Court of Common Pleas recently when it ruled that a man convicted of vehicular homicide entered a knowing and voluntary plea.

Mateo Ralios pleaded guilty to aggravated vehicular homicide, aggravated vehicular assault and receiving stolen property.

In exchange, the state agreed to dismiss additional counts of aggravated vehicular homicide and vehicular assault.

Ralios was sentenced to an aggregate term of 15 years in prison and then appealed to the 9th District Court arguing that his plea was not knowing, voluntary or intelligent because the trial court did not comply with the requirements of Criminal Rule 11.

“We disagree,” Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal wrote on behalf of the appellate panel. “Although strict compliance with Criminal Rule 11 is required for the constitutional notifications, substantial compliance is sufficient for the non-constitutional notifications.”

Hensal noted that Ralios needed the proceedings interpreted so the court provided an interpreter via telephone during the plea and sentencing hearings.

At the plea hearing, Ralios was informed that, since he was not a United States citizen, he faced potential deportation and naturalization consequences.

The trial court also informed Ralios that, by pleading guilty, he was relinquishing his right to a public trial by jury, his right to an attorney, his right to confront and subpoena witnesses and his right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

According to a summary of the proceedings, the trial court let Ralios know all of the maximum sentences and fines that he could possibly be subject to for his offenses.

Ralios was told that two of the counts to which he pleaded guilty required mandatory imprisonment.

“From our review of Mr. Ralios’ plea colloquy, we conclude that the trial court notified Mr. Ralios of all his constitutional rights, the maximum penalties for each offense to which he pleaded guilty, and that he was not eligible for community control on counts one and three,” Hensal wrote. “In other words, the trial court provided all of the notifications required by Criminal Rule 11.”

Still, Ralios argued that his pleas were invalid because the trial court’s notifications were “confusing.”

He contended that the order in which the notifications were provided was complex and the issue was exacerbated because of his lack of fluency.

The appellate panel, however, held that while the trial court could have clarified things a bit, it could not say that the colloquy was inherently confusing.

“Nor do we find persuasive Mr. Ralios’ argument that the colloquy became more confusing because he was not fluent in English,” Hensal wrote. “The court provided an interpreter for Mr. Ralios, and Mr. Ralios does not argue or assign as error that the interpreter was unqualified or deficient in her performance.”

Absent any evidence that the interpreter failed to properly relay information, the court of appeals could find nothing that would render the plea colloquy insufficient, especially since Ralios gave no indication that he was confused during the proceedings.

“Thus, we conclude that, under the totality of the circumstances, Mr. Ralios’ plea was knowing and voluntary,” Hensal wrote.

Judges Donna Carr and Julie Schafer joined Hensal to affirm the judgment of the Medina County court.

The case is cited State v. Ralios, 2015-Ohio-1337.

Copyright © 2015 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved


[Back]