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. Lopez-Tolentino

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

November 21, 2019

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Juan Lopez-Tolentino, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas No. 16CR-2160

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Sheryl L. Prichard, for appellee.

          Juan Lopez-Tolentino, pro se.

          DECISION

          DORRIAN, J.

         {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Juan Lopez-Tolentino, appeals from the April 17, 2019 judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion to withdraw guilty plea. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} By way of indictment filed April 20, 2016, appellant was indicted on four counts of rape, in violation of R.C. 2907.02, all felonies of the first degree, and one count of kidnapping, in violation of R.C. 2905.01, a felony of the first degree. On November 6, 2017, appellant entered pleas of guilty to four stipulated lesser-included offenses of the rape charges: three counts of sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2907.03, all felonies of the third degree, and one count of attempted sexual battery, in violation of R.C. 2923.02, as it relates to R.C. 2907.03, a felony of the fourth degree. Plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio, entered a nolle prosequi as to the kidnapping count. The court ordered and received a pre-sentence investigation. On November 27, 2017, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. The prosecutor and appellant's attorney jointly recommended a sentence of six and one-half years' incarceration. The court imposed two years each as to Counts 1, 2, and 3; and six months as to Count 4 to be served consecutively to each other for a total of six and one-half years. No appeal was taken from the judgment.

         {¶ 3} On April 10, 2019, appellant filed a motion to withdraw guilty pleas. Therein, appellant argued: (1) although he had a court-appointed interpreter, there is "no record evidence to support that [appellant] heard the procedures in a language that he understood," (2) the "sworn statement" of the interpreter is not sufficient to determine appellant did in fact understand the consequences of his pleas, (3) there is no clear evidence on the record that the interpreter properly translated Spanish into English and English into Spanish, (4) had appellant known the three sexual battery offenses and attempted sexual battery offense "may/is" of similar import, he would not have entered guilty pleas and would have instead elected to have a jury trial, and (5) the same offenses were allied offenses.

         {¶ 4} On April 17, 2019, the trial court denied appellant's motion with a succinct entry stating appellant's motion was "not well-taken." Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal on April 30, 2019.

         II. Assignments of Error

         {¶ 5} Appellant appeals and assigns the following four assignments of error for our review:

I. The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it knowingly or not accepted the blatant lie made by the State's memorandum contra defendant motion to withdraw guilty plea.
II. The trial court erred when it entered judgment against the defendant for allied offenses.
III. The trial court erred and abused its discretion/depriving a fair post-sentence hearing due to ...

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.