Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Lozada

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

July 25, 2019

STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
RICARDO LOZADA, Defendant-Appellant.

          Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-17-623257-A

          Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James Gallagher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

          The Law Office of Jaye M. Schlachet, and Eric M. Levy, for appellee.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, JUDGE.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Ricardo Lozada pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of grand theft of a motor vehicle. One count of aggravated robbery had attached to it a one-year firearm specification and the other had both one- and three-year firearm specifications attached. The trial court sentenced Lozada to a total term of 14 years in prison.

         {¶ 2} On appeal, Lozada raises the following four assignments of error for our review:

1.Appellant's guilty pleas are invalid and are required to be vacated pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) where at the time of the guilty plea the trial court failed to ensure that appellant was aware that by entering his plea he would be waiving his constitutional rights which was not in strict compliance with the criminal rule.
2.The trial court committed reversible error when it failed to hold a competency hearing prior to appellant being required to go forward with trial and then prior to accepting his guilty plea.
3.The trial court erred by not making the required considerations and findings on the record at the sentencing hearing prior to imposing sentence upon appellant and the sentence imposed is not supported by the record.
4.The cumulative effect of errors deprived appellant of a fair trial or opportunity to understand the nature of entering a guilty plea.

         Law and Analysis

         Compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)

         {¶ 3} In the first assignment of error, Lozada argues that the court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) because it did not ensure he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving his constitutional rights at trial. We agree.

         {¶ 4} This precise issue was before this court in State v. Miller, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105363, 2018-Ohio-843, appeal accepted for review, 153 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2018-Ohio-4288, 109 N.E.3d 1259. In Miller, during the plea colloquy, the trial court made sure that the defendant understood his constitutional rights related to his right to go to trial. Id. at ΒΆ 16. Nevertheless, this court found the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.