State v. Hamed

Citations

• 2017 Ohio 1071

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Appellant's motion, filed under Crim.R. 32.1, to withdraw his plea of guilty. Appellant's motion is based upon two contentions: (1) that his attorney provided ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to inform him of the immigration consequences of a plea of guilty and (2) that Appellant's inability to understand English prevented him from intelligently and knowingly entering a guilty plea. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that Appellant's attorney properly advised him of the potential immigration consequences of pleading guilty, and that Appellant's understanding of English allowed a knowing and voluntary guilty plea. Judgment affirmed.