State v. Reyes

2021-Ohio-3599

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LUIS REYES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 110126

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

October 7, 2021

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-19-638018-A

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jennifer A Driscoll, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Patituce & Associates, L.L.C., Joseph C. Patituce, Megan M. Patituce, and Lauren K. Wazevich, for appellant

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J.

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Luis Reyes ("Reyes"), appeals from his convictions and sentence. He raises the following assignments of error for review:

1. The trial court erred in accepting Mr. Reyes's guilty plea without confirming that he understood the entirety of the Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy.

2. Defense counsel's representation fell below a reasonable standard of care when counsel failed to protect Mr. Reyes's constitutional and legal rights.

3. The trial court erred when it accepted Mr. Reyes's guilty plea after improperly instructing on the effect of said plea during the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy.

4. The trial court erred in sentencing Mr. Reyes to a 16-year term of imprisonment.

{¶ 2} After careful review of the record and relevant case law we affirm Reyes's convictions and sentence.

I. Procedural and Factual History

{¶ 3} In May 2019, Reyes was named in a 12-count indictment, charging him with rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 1); rape in violation of RC. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 2); rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 3); rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 4); kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), with a sexual motivation specification, a sexually violent predator specification, and one-and three-year firearm specifications (Count 5); having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), with one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 6); having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), with one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 7); rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 8); rape in violation of R.C. 2907.02(A)(2), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 9); kidnapping in violation of R.C. 2905.01(A)(4), with a sexually violent predator specification and one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 10); having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), with one- and three-year firearm specifications (Count 11); and having weapons while under disability in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(2), with one-and three-year firearm specifications (Count 12). The indictment stemmed from allegations that Reyes separately raped the victims, Jane Doe I and Jane Doe II.

{¶ 4} In September 2020, Reyes appeared before the trial court and expressed that he wished to withdraw his previously entered plea of not guilty and accept the terms of a negotiated plea agreement with the state. Following a Crim.R. 11 colloquy, Reyes pleaded guilty to two counts of rape, with one-year firearm specifications, as amended in Counts 1 and 8 of the indictment; one count of rape, as amended in Count 2 of the indictment; and two counts of abduction, as amended in Counts 5 and 10 of the indictment. In exchange for his guilty pleas, the state reduced the kidnapping offenses to the lesser offense of abduction, and dismissed Counts 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 12 of the indictment. In addition, the state deleted the three-year firearm specifications previously attached to Counts 1 and 8 of the indictment; the one- and three- year firearm specifications previously attached to Count 2, 5, and 10 of the indictment; the sexually violent predator specifications previously attached to Counts 1, 2, 5, 8, and 10 of the indictment; and the sexual motivation specification previously attached to Count 5 of the indictment. The trial court accepted Reyes's guilty pleas and referred him to the county probation department for the completion of a presentence investigation and report (the "PSI").

{¶ 5} As set forth in Reyes's PSI, Jane Doe II alleged that on October 1, 2016, she was walking to a store when a man driving a white SUV pulled up beside her and suddenly attacked her. The male then drove Jane Doe II to an alley where he orally and vaginally raped her at gunpoint. Jane Doe II was subsequently transported to a local hospital and a rape kit was collected. Reyes was later linked to the incident after samples taken from the rape kit were entered into the Ohio Combined DNA Index System.

{¶ 6} Jane Doe I alleged that on February 4, 2018, she was walking home when a man in a white SUV approached her at gunpoint. The man forced Jane Doe I into his vehicle and drove to a nearby alleyway. The man then digitally penetrated Jane Doe I and forced her to have vaginal and oral intercourse. After the incident, Jane Doe I contacted 911 and was taken to the hospital. A rape kit was completed, and Reyes's DNA was discovered in the vaginal and anal swabs taken from Jane Doe I.

{¶ 7} The matter proceeded to sentencing in November 2020. At sentencing, the court heard statements prepared by one of the victims and members of Reyes's immediate family. The victim described the physical, emotional, and psychological harm Reyes's conduct caused her. She explained that she is "stuck in a depression that no one will ever understand" and has turned to alcohol to "numb [her] feelings." (Tr. 34.) The victim asked that the court not show Reyes mercy, "because that day, February 4th, 2018, he didn't have mercy on me." (Tr. 35.)

{¶ 8} In turn, Reyes's father and wife asked the court for leniency based on Reyes's history of mental health issues and their belief in his innocence. Reyes also spoke on his own behalf. He expressed sympathy for the victim, but maintained his innocence, stating:

But I never in my life would do anything to rape, to hurt, or to disrespect a female. Sorry for you guys wasting your time. Sorry for your family, but I took these charges out of fear. I didn't take these charges because I did it, because I didn't do it. That's all I have to say, Your Honor.

(Tr. 45-46.)

{¶ 9} Based on Reyes's proclamation of innocence at sentencing, the trial court inquired as to whether Reyes wished to withdraw his plea based on his failure to accept responsibility for the crimes. Following a brief discussion off the record, defense counsel expressed that Reyes wished to proceed with sentencing and "[did] not desire to withdraw his guilty pleas." (Tr. 47.)

{¶ 10} Upon consideration of Reyes's PSI and the statements presented during the sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Reyes to a one-year term of imprisonment on each firearm specification, to run prior and consecutive to seven-year prison terms imposed on Counts 1 and 8. In addition, the court sentenced Reyes to seven years in prison on Count 2, and 36-month prison terms on Counts 5 and 10. The trial court ordered the aggregate eight-year prison terms imposed on Counts 1 and 8 to run consecutively, for an aggregate 16-year prison term. The remaining sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

{¶ 11} Reyes now appeals from his convictions and sentence.

II. Law and Analysis A. Crim.R. 11

{¶ 12} In his first assignment of error, Reyes argues the trial court erred in accepting his guilty plea without confirming that he understood the entirety of the Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy. In his third assignment of error, Reyes argues the trial court erred when it accepted his guilty plea despite the court's improper advisement regarding the consequences of his plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(B)(1) and (C)(2)(b). Because these assigned errors challenge the validity of Reyes's guilty pleas, we address them together.

{¶ 13} The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11 is to convey certain information to a defendant so that they can make a voluntary and intelligent decision regarding whether to plead guilty. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). "The standard for reviewing whether the trial court accepted a plea in compliance with Crim.R. 11(C) is a de novo standard of review." State v. Cardwell, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 92796, 2009-Ohio-6827, ¶ 26, citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977).

{¶ 14} In order to ensure that a defendant enters a plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, a trial court must engage in an oral dialogue with the defendant in accordance with Crim.R. 11(C). State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). Crim.R. 11(C) outlines the trial court's duties in accepting guilty pleas:

(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.

(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the

...