State v. Razo, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2005)

2005 Ohio 3793
CourtOhio Court of Appeals
DecidedJuly 27, 2005
DocketNo. 05CA008639.
StatusUnpublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 2005 Ohio 3793 (State v. Razo, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2005)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law.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.

Bluebook
State v. Razo, Unpublished Decision (7-27-2005), 2005 Ohio 3793 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005).

Opinion

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
{¶ 1} Defendant, Ranulfo Razo, appeals the decision of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

{¶ 2} Defendant was indicted by the Lorain County Grand Jury on May 23, 2001, for two counts of Rape, in violation of R.C.2907.02(A)(1)(b), and a third count of Rape, in violation of R.C.2907.02(A)(2). Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charges on June 29, 2001.

{¶ 3} On March 5, 2002, Defendant appeared in court with his counsel and entered a guilty plea to an amended indictment on two counts of rape. Defendant was found to be a sexual predator and he was sentenced to a term of five to twenty-five years on count one, and to a term of six to twenty-five years on count three (count two was nolled). The sentences were to be served consecutively.

{¶ 4} On December 20, 2004, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court denied Defendant's motion on January 6, 2005. Defendant now appeals, asserting one assignment of error for our review.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
"The trial court erred and abused its discretion in denying leave to withdraw the guilty plea in this case where [Defendant] demonstrated ineffective counsel and manifest injustice, without conducting any hearing."

{¶ 5} In his only assignment of error, Defendant maintains that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea without conducting a hearing. We disagree.

{¶ 6} It is within the trial court's sound discretion to determine whether there is a legitimate and reasonable basis for the withdrawal of a guilty plea, and absent an abuse of discretion, the trial court's decision on the matter must be affirmed. State v. Remines (Feb. 25, 1998), 9th Dist. No. 97CA006700, at 3, citing State v. Xie (1992),62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of judgment; it implies a decision that is "unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable." State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151,157.

{¶ 7} Crim.R. 32.1 dictates when a motion to withdraw a guilty plea may be made. It provides that the motion "may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea." Id.

{¶ 8} A defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, at paragraph one of the syllabus. Pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1, a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea must demonstrate a manifest injustice.State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261, paragraph one of the syllabus. The defendant has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice. State v. Gegia,157 Ohio App.3d 112, 2004-Ohio-2124, at ¶ 8.

{¶ 9} Defendant maintains that his counsel was ineffective for not interviewing a possible alibi witness, and for failing to request an interpreter. This court employs a two-step process in determining whether a defendant's right to effective assistance of counsel has been violated. Strickland v. Washington (1984),466 U.S. 668, 687, 80 L.Ed.2d 674. First, the court must determine whether there was a "substantial violation of any of defense counsel's essential duties to his client." State v.Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279, 289, 1999-Ohio-102. "This requires a showing that counsel made errors so serious that counsel was not functioning as the `counsel' guaranteed the defendant by the Sixth Amendment." Id.

{¶ 10} Second, the defendant must show that the deficient performance of counsel prejudiced the defense. State v. Bradley (1989) 42 Ohio St.3d 136, paragraph two of the syllabus. Prejudice exists where there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different but for the alleged deficiencies of counsel. Bradley at paragraph 3 of the syllabus. "This requires showing that counsel's errors were so serious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial, a trial whose result is reliable." Strickland 466 U.S. at 687. "An error by counsel, even if professionally unreasonable, does not warrant setting aside the judgment of a criminal proceeding if the error had no effect on the judgment." Id at 691.

{¶ 11} This court need not address both elements in any particular order — if we find that there was no prejudice to Defendant by defense counsel's acts, we need not address whether defense counsel's acts were actually deficient. See Bradley,42 Ohio St.3d at 141. In this case, we find that Defendant has failed to show that prejudice resulted from his trial counsel's actions.

{¶ 12} Licensed attorneys are presumed competent in Ohio.State v. Lytle (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 391, at 397. Defendant must overcome the "presumption that, under the circumstances, the challenged action `might be considered sound trial strategy.'"Strickland, 466 U.S. at 689, quoting Michel v. Louisiana (1955), 350 U.S. 91, 100 L.Ed. 83.

{¶ 13} In regard to Defendant's trial counsel's failure to interview a possible alibi witness, we note that trial counsel's tactical strategies are afforded a presumption of reasonableness. See Id. See, also, State v. Clayton (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 45. Defendant alleges that his counsel was ineffective for failing to interview an alleged alibi witness. Defendant's counsel did file a Notice of Alibi on November 2, 2001, stating that Defendant had an alibi witness to testify that Defendant resided in Ohio from May 27, 1992, through October 15, 1992. While defense counsel may not have actually interviewed the alibi witness, we cannot find that Defendant was prejudiced by that failure.

{¶ 14} Defendant alleges that the alibi witness would have shown that he was not in the state of Ohio during the time period in which the indictment stated he had committed rape, and therefore, his counsel was ineffective for failing to interview the alibi witness. We disagree. Counts one and three of the amended indictment, to which Defendant plead guilty, stated that he raped two minors between January 1, 1991, and December 31, 1993. Even if Defendant's alibi witness were to testify that Defendant was living in Florida for part of the time between 1991 and 1993,1

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Manning
2024 Ohio 1964 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2024)
State v. McClellan
2023 Ohio 2152 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2023)
State v. Mulkey
2020 Ohio 3531 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2020)
State v. Razo
2016 Ohio 2763 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2016)
State v. Robinson
2015 Ohio 4262 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2015)
State v. Arrunategui
2013 Ohio 1525 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)
State v. Susany, 07 Ma 7 (3-20-2008)
2008 Ohio 1543 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2008)
State v. Razo
876 N.E.2d 967 (Ohio Supreme Court, 2007)
State v. Ray, Unpublished Decision (9-21-2005)
2005 Ohio 4941 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2005 Ohio 3793, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-razo-unpublished-decision-7-27-2005-ohioctapp-2005.