Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
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.
Law Office of Jaye M. Schlachet, and Eric M. Levy, for
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
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
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.
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
¶ 16. Nevertheless, this court found the trial court
failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. ...