State v. Ramallo
This text of 2016 Ohio 5544 (State v. Ramallo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Ramallo, 2016-Ohio-5544.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-15-1236
Appellee Trial Court No. CR0201202995
v.
Hugo Ramallo DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: August 26, 2016
*****
Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Lawrence A. Gold, for appellant.
Hugo Ramallo, pro se.
OSOWIK, J.
{¶ 1} This is an appeal brought by appellant from the judgment of the Lucas
County Court of Common Pleas. A brief procedural history is educative. On direct
appeal, this court, in case No. L-14-1026, remanded the case to the trial court for the limited purpose of conducting a hearing and establishing a record to enable the trial court
to make a finding of appellant’s ability to pay for his costs of confinement or appointed
counsel fees.
{¶ 2} On remand, by entry journalized on August 20, 2015, the trial court ordered
that all costs were to be waived and further, the court specifically found that appellant
could not reasonably be expected to have the means to pay the costs of prosecution.
{¶ 3} The record further reflects that an interpreter was appointed and present on
behalf of appellant at the remand hearing conducted on August 6, 2015.
{¶ 4} Appellate counsel was appointed. Appellant appeals from that judgment
entry.
{¶ 5} Appointed counsel has filed a brief and requested leave to withdraw as
counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493
(1967). Under Anders, if, after a conscientious examination of the case, counsel
concludes the appeal to be wholly frivolous, he should so advise the court and request
permission to withdraw. Id. at 744. This request must be accompanied by a brief
identifying anything in the record that could arguably support the appeal. Id. In addition,
counsel must provide appellant with a copy of the brief and request to withdraw, and
allow appellant sufficient time to raise any additional matters. Id. Once these
requirements are satisfied, the appellate court is required to conduct an independent
examination of the proceedings below to determine if the appeal is indeed frivolous. Id.
2. If it so finds, the appellate court may grant counsel’s request to withdraw, and decide the
appeal without violating any constitutional requirements. Id.
{¶ 6} In this case, appellant’s appointed counsel has satisfied the requirements set
forth in Anders, supra. This court further notes that appellant did file a pro se brief on his
own behalf in this appeal. Appellee, state of Ohio, has filed a responsive brief.
{¶ 7} Accordingly, this court shall proceed with an examination of the potential
assignments of error set forth by counsel. We have reviewed and considered the entire
record from below including the transcript of all proceedings and journal entries and
original papers from the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas as well as the briefs filed
by counsel. Upon this review we will determine if this appeal lacks merit and is,
therefore, wholly frivolous.
{¶ 8} Counsel refers to one possible, but ultimately indefensible, issue: (1) the
trial court violated Appellant’s right to Due Process by denying his right to a qualified
interpreter.
{¶ 9} Specifically, the argument presented in support of this proposed assignment
is that the interpreter Teo Zuniga, did not speak the Spanish language with a “Castilian”
dialect.
{¶ 10} The record reflects that the interpreter was sworn by the court reporter at
the remand hearing. The appellant’s objection was noted. However, the court found that
this was the same interpreter that served during the original proceedings and there were
3. no objections to the interpreter during the course of the trial. The objection was
overruled and the matter proceeded.
{¶ 11} It is well established that a defendant in a criminal case is entitled to hear
the proceedings in a language he can understand. State v. Mota, 6th Dist. Lucas No.
L-04-1354, 2006-Ohio-3800.
{¶ 12} Nevertheless, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether the
defendant requires an interpreter for assistance. State v. Saah, 67 Ohio App.3d 86, 95,
585 N.E.2d 999 (1990); State v. Quinones, 8th Dist. No. 44463, 1982 Ohio App. LEXIS
11970 (Oct. 14, 1982). Accordingly, an appellate court will not disturb a decision of the
trial court regarding the need for an interpreter absent an abuse of discretion. Id. An
abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the trial
court’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable. Blakemore v.
Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶ 13} Appellant has not demonstrated that the interpreter was not properly
qualified to translate or that he lacked veracity. At no time did appellant express concern
that he was not able to understand the interpreter’s explanations. In fact, when the
appellant was personally addressed by the trial court and asked specifically if he had
anything to say, the appellant responded “No.”
{¶ 14} Based on the record in this case, we cannot find that the trial court abused
its discretion in appointing this interpreter and find this proposed assignment of error to
be meritless.
4. {¶ 15} Appellant has filed his own brief. He argues that he is from Argentina and
that the dialect has a “twist” and some words have different sounds and different
meanings. However, he does not articulate how this dialect adversely impacted the
August 6, 2015 remand proceedings. All costs were suspended. To the extent that this
argument is an assignment of error, it cannot be found well-taken.
{¶ 16} Appellant also presents additional arguments that claim the trial court did
not personally address him at the proceedings and he was not given the opportunity to
speak in mitigation. However, the transcript establishes that he was personally asked
whether he had anything to say and that appellant, not the interpreter, answered “No.”
{¶ 17} Appellant also presents an argument that the court failed to make proper
findings to support the imposition of consecutive sentences. The August 6, 2016
proceeding was for the limited purpose of addressing appellant’s ability to pay the costs
assessed in the original sentencing. Although this issue was not before the trial court on
this limited remand, our review of the original sentencing proceedings of January 27,
2014 and judgment entry journalized on February 11, 2014, establish that the court did
indeed make these findings as required by R.C. 2929.14(C)(4). Likewise, to the extent
that this argument is an assignment of error, it is also meritless.
Conclusion
{¶ 18} We have accordingly conducted an independent examination of the record
pursuant to Anders v. California and have further considered appellant’s proposed
assignments of error and the arguments presented in appellant’s pro se brief. The motion
5. of counsel for appellant requesting to withdraw as counsel is granted, and we have
determined this appeal to be wholly frivolous.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2016 Ohio 5544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-ramallo-ohioctapp-2016.