State v. Sales

203 N.E.3d 116

STATE of Ohio, Appellee,

v.Hallan Iverzon Jeronimo SALES, Appellant.

NO. CA2022-05-056

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Butler County.

December 5, 2022

Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and John C. Heinkel, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

George A. Katchmer, for appellant.

OPINION

S. POWELL, P.J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Hallan Iverzon Jeronimo Sales, appeals from the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas denying his presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea to single counts of fourth-degree felony vehicular assault and first-degree misdemeanor operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol. For the reasons outlined below, we affirm the trial court's decision.

{¶ 2} On March 31, 2021, the Butler County Grand Jury returned an indictment charging Sales with third-degree felony aggravated vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(1)(a) and first-degree misdemeanor operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ("OVI") in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). A superseding indictment was thereafter returned that included an additional charge of first-degree misdemeanor OVI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(e).

{¶ 3} The charges arose after the then unlicensed and intoxicated Sales caused an automobile accident between himself and a parked police cruiser during the early morning hours of February 25, 2021, while traveling westbound on E. Crescentville Road in West Chester Township, Butler County, Ohio. The crash between Sales’ vehicle and the parked police cruiser caused the victim seated in the police cruiser's backseat to be hospitalized for several weeks with a subdermal hematoma that required the victim to undergo emergency neurosurgery. Sales, a non-citizen who immigrated to the United States from his home country of Guatemala, and whose native language is Mam, was 18 years old at the time of the accident.¹

{¶ 4} On April 14, 2021, Sales appeared at his arraignment hearing and a not guilty plea was entered on Sales’ behalf. The matter then proceeded to discovery and Sales’ trial was scheduled for November 15, 2021. Approximately seven months later, on November 3, 2021, Sales moved the trial court for a continuance of his trial date so that his then attorney, Attorney Louis E. Valencia, II, would have time to review certain medical records that the state had yet to receive from the victim.² The trial court granted Sales’ motion to continue and rescheduled Sales’ trial to take place on January 10, 2022.

{¶ 5} On December 9, 2021, the trial court met with counsel for both parties in chambers to discuss Sales’ upcoming trial. During this meeting, counsel spoke at length regarding a potential resolution of the case. The record indicates that a sizable portion of this discussion came from Sales’ then attorney, Attorney Valencia, and was centered around Sales’ immigration status and the potential impact on Sales’ immigration status, if Sales were to enter into a plea agreement with the state. This meeting ultimately concluded without any resolution to the case.

{¶ 6} On January 5, 2022, Sales entered into a negotiated plea agreement with the state. After entering into this plea agreement, Sales appeared before the trial court with a Spanish interpreter and his attorney, Attorney Valencia. Once the interpreter was sworn in, Sales’ attorney advised the trial court that Sales had agreed to plead guilty to a reduced charge of fourth-degree felony vehicular assault in violation of R.C. 2903.08(A)(2)(b), as well as the first-degree misdemeanor OVI set forth in the original indictment, in exchange for the state dismissing the additional first-degree misdemeanor OVI charged in the superseding indictment.³ Sales’ attorney also advised the trial court that Sales had agreed to pay restitution upwards of $450,000 to cover the victim's medical bills.⁴ When asked by the trial court if this was his understanding of the plea agreement he had entered into with the state, Sales immediately responded to the trial court, in English, and stated, "Yes."

{¶ 7} Following the necessary Crim.R. 11(C) plea colloquy, the trial court accepted Sales’ guilty plea upon finding the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. This plea colloquy included the trial court confirming with Sales that Sales understood that by entering a guilty plea he would waive his right to a jury trial. This also included Sales advising the trial court that he understood fully what was taking place prior to him entering his guilty plea, and Sales admitting to the trial court that the state's recitation of facts were true.

{¶ 8} During the plea colloquy, Sales further noted for the trial court that nobody had forced, threatened, or coerced him in any way to plead guilty. This is in addition to Sales notifying the trial court that he was satisfied with the legal advice and representation that he had received from his then attorney, Attorney Valencia, and that there was nothing that his attorney could have done, or should have done, that he had not done prior to him entering his guilty plea. The record indicates that this included Sales reviewing the change of plea form with Attorney Valencia and having his attorney explain the change of plea for to him in Spanish prior to Sales signing his name to that form.

{¶ 9} On January 12, 2022, Sales filed notice of substitution of counsel informing the trial court that he had retained new counsel and would no longer be represented by Attorney Valencia. Five days later, on January 17, 2022, Sales’ new counsel filed a motion to withdraw Sales’ guilty plea. To support this motion, Sales attached two affidavits: one that Sales himself had signed and one that was signed by Sales’ mother.⁵ In his affidavit, Sales averred, among other things, the following:

It was not until the judge told me that I would not have the rights to a jury and to call witnesses that I heard of these things and that I must pay $450,000.00 for the [victim]. I was confused and afraid and I looked to Mr. Valencia who told me to say "guilty" which I did because he said so[.]

{¶ 10} Sales also averred:

I was afraid and confused at the time Mr. Valencia told me to plead because I had no choice, I did not understand that I would be giving up all my rights, I did so because Mr. Valencia said I had no choice five minutes before he wanted me to plead, I said guilty because Mr. Valencia told me to when we were in court[.]

{¶ 11} Somewhat similar to Sales’ averments, Sales’ mother averred in her affidavit that, "Mr. Valencia had told us that [the victim] was very seriously injured and couldn't walk and was eating through a straw," which was not true because she "saw this man walking around working and not injured and recorded this on my phone[.]" Sales’ mother also claimed that she "attempted to show this [video] to Mr. Valencia more than one time but he was not interested[.]" Sales’ mother further claimed that it was only after Sales entered his guilty plea that she "again spoke to Mr. Valencia about this video and he said, ‘Oh, Ok, give it to my secretary[.]’ " Sales’ mother additionally averred within her affidavit, the following:

Mr. Valencia called me on December 23, 2021 at 9:30 PM and told me that I had two options: if my son would plead guilty, he would want $1,000.00[.] He said he could sue the police officer because the officer did not do his job but he would want another $10,000.00 to sue the officer[.]

{¶ 12} On April 26, 2022, the trial court held a hearing on Sales’ motion to withdraw his guilty plea. During this hearing, the trial court heard testimony from just one witness, Sales. Sales, who testified in English with the assistance of a Mam interpreter, claimed that he only met with his prior attorney, Attorney Valencia, one time. Sales testified that during this meeting his attorney never spoke with him about his plea or any defense strategy. Sales testified that his attorney also did not show him any discovery documents. Sales instead testified that his attorney merely told him, "If you want to pay me $10,000, then we'll go to trial. If you want to pay me $1,000, then you go into a plea." Sales testified that his attorney also told him to plead guilty and that, even though he was pleading guilty, "witnesses will come to testify in court" and that, "if you plead guilty, you won't have no problem with immigration." Sales additionally testified that he did not want to plead guilty, but that he did so because he was "afraid" and "really [did not] know what was happening."

{¶ 13} On May 24, 2022, the trial court issued a lengthy, detailed decision setting forth its reasoning for denying Sales’ motion. In so doing, the trial court noted that it had found certain portions of Sales’ testimony "puzzling" given that Sales’ testimony "contradicts" with other evidence in the record. This included, for instance, the claims Sales’ mother made within her affidavit. The trial court also noted that it had found it "clear" that Sales had discussed his immigration status with his attorney, Attorney Valencia, prior to him entering into a negotiated plea agreement with the state. The trial court made this finding based, at least in part, on the fact that Sales’ "immigration status and deportation consumed much of the discussion the court had in chambers with [Sales’ attorney] and [the state]" during their meeting held on December 9, 2021.

{¶ 14} After setting forth these findings, the trial court then noted its conclusion regarding the allegations set forth within Sales’ and Sales’ mother's affidavits. In so doing, the trial court stated:

The main thrust of what the court takes from [Sales’] affidavit and his mother's affidavit relate to the injuries suffered by the victim in this case and that they do not believe that he was injured as badly as they had been told. While [Sales’] mother may have a video of the victim walking around working and not injured, that doesn't mean

...