State v. Gaspareno

[Cite as State v. Gaspareno, 2016-Ohio-990.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
MARION COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO,
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 9-15-15
v.
CRISTINO GASPARENO, OPINION
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from Marion County Common Pleas Court
Trial Court No. 14-CR-535
Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part and Cause Remanded
Date of Decision: March 14, 2016
APPEARANCES:
Brian G. Jones for Appellant
Denise M. Martin for Appellee
Case No. 9-15-15
ROGERS, J.
{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Cristino Gaspareno, appeals the judgment of the
Court of Common Pleas of Marion County convicting him of one count of
trafficking in heroin and sentencing him to 12 months in prison. On appeal,
Gaspareno argues that the trial court erred by (1) considering statements made by
Gaspareno’s co-defendants, Sandra Luiz Vera Sanchez and Manuel Guerra,
contained in their sealed presentence investigations (“PSI”) for the purposes of
sentencing Gaspareno; (2) failing to inform Gaspareno that the trial court was not
bound by any sentencing agreement between the State and Gaspareno; (3)
imposing a mandatory three-year period of post-release control; and (4) failing to
properly qualify the court interpreter, Pedro Coe. For the reasons that follow, we
affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
{¶2} On November 25, 2014, a felony complaint was filed in the Marion
Municipal Court against Gaspareno1, charging him with one count of complicity to
trafficking in heroin with a specification in violation of R.C. 2923.03,
2925.03(A)(1), and 2925.03(C)(6), a felony of the first degree. The Marion
County Grand Jury returned a two count joint indictment against Guerra,
Gaspareno, and Sanchez on December 3, 2014.2 Gaspareno was charged with the
1
The original complaint and the later indictment charged “Cristinoher Gaspareno.” At a later date, the
State was permitted to amend the complaint and indictment to correct the spelling error to Cristino.
2
The first count charged Guerra solely, thus we will not discuss it.
-2-
Case No. 9-15-15
same exact crime. Additionally, two separate forfeiture specifications were filed.
The forfeiture specifications sought the forfeiture of a 2002 Buick Rendezvous
and $4,675 in cash. As a result of the indictment, the State moved to transfer the
case to the Court of Common Pleas of Marion County, which was granted on
December 4, 2014. Gaspareno entered a plea of not guilty.
{¶3} The State filed a bill of particulars on December 29, 2014, where it
alleged that Gaspareno and his co-defendants met up with two confidential
informants and sold the informants 26.3 grams of black tar heroin in exchange for
$1,600.
{¶4} The court held a pretrial on December 29, 2014. Present in the
courtroom were the judge, prosecutor, all three co-defendants with separate
defense counsel3, and Coe. At the onset, Coe indicated that he would be
performing interpreter services for all three co-defendants during the pretrial.
After introducing all three cases on the record, the trial court stated, “Also present
with the Defendants is certified interpreter Pedro Coe who has performed - -
providing interpretation services for the Defendants today.” Dec. 29, 2014 Hrg.,
p. 2. Coe was then sworn in by the court.
{¶5} After introducing Coe, the trial court addressed all three co-defendants
and explained that Coe would be providing interpreter services throughout all the
3
Brian Jones representing Gaspareno; David Lowther representing Guerra; and Jon Doyle representing
Sanchez.
-3-
Case No. 9-15-15
court proceedings. The trial court asked each co-defendant if he or she
understood. Coe stated that Sanchez “nods her head in affirmative.” Id. at p. 3.
Mr. Guerra stated, “Um-hum.” Id. The record is silent as to whether Gaspareno
gave any audible or visual indication as to his understanding of Coe’s role.
{¶6} Throughout the hearing, the court discussed procedural issues such as
discovery and whether the cases would be tried together. While the court and all
counsel were discussing a letter allegedly written by Guerra to Sanchez, the
following exchange occurred.
Lowther: From what I’ve received I’ve not seen anything that would
I guess - - okay - -
Coe: They stated that that - -
Lowther: No. No. No.
Doyle: I don’t want them saying anything. I don’t want my client
saying anything. Unless you run it by me.
Court: Right. Right. If there’s something they want to
communicate to their attorney we can allow ya [sic] to
communicate that to their attorney. I don’t want you to
communicate it out in open Court.
Coe: Okay. No problem.
***
Court: Just so we’re clear, you know, I assume you’re still
interpreting here. I kind of - -
-4-
Case No. 9-15-15
Coe: I stopped, you know, after what you said you know, “Hold
on”. Do you guys want me to keep saying - -
Court: No, I want you to - - I want you to con - -
Coe: Okay. Usually what I do I tell them everything that is said
as if they would be, you know, their native language and
they would know what is going on in the room.
Court: No, right. You should be - - everything that is said here in
the courtroom you should be commun - -
Coe: I’m just saying - - okay. Okay. I just stopped for a couple
minutes because you said that - -
Court: But - - but if they wanna say something I don’t want you
saying out in Court what the Defendants have to say.
Coe: No problem. Okay. Okay. Okay, Your Honor.
Court: Now, the – the other issue that - - the other issue and I
think Mr. Jones raises it here. As an interpreter all you’re
doing is repeating what is said. You know you’re not
sharing any information that any individuals have said,
you know, with anyone. You know, it would be
inappropriate for you to share with anyone other than an
individual Defendant’s counsel anything that Defendant
has told you or any conversation that’s taken place
between an attorney and the client. It’d also be
inappropriate to share anything you overheard from any of
the attorneys. Do you have any issue with any of that, Mr.
Coe?
Coe: No, Your Honor, may I say I usually - - best way for me
to say I had almost like a priest and a confessionary. I can
the saint or I can tell - - (inaudible) - - but I can’t tell both.
So I cannot tell any of them something I heard from the
other person.
-5-
Case No. 9-15-15
Court: Okay. And you can’t tell the Prosecutor either.
Coe: No. No. Nobody. I mean, it dies with me.
Id. at p. 15, 17-18.
{¶7} Additional objections were raised by different counsel regarding
Coe’s ability to remain objective. In vouching for Coe, the court noted that Coe
had served as an interpreter for approximately the last ten years or so without any
problems. Coe responded that he would perform his job objectively. The court
and counsel concluded the hearing by discussing other details of the case,
including potential trial dates that worked for everyone. During this discussion,
the following exchange occurred.
Court: If we have multiple Defendants, we will have a separate
interpreter for each Defendant during trial.
Lowther: For each, okay.
Court: For pretrial I didn’t think that was necessary. You know,
for the Suppression hearing, I’ll need at least two
interpreters because if we have any Defendant testifying
we’re gonna need a separate interpreter for that testifying
Defendant. So we’ll have to arrange for two interpreters
at least for the Suppression Hearing.
Lowther: And that could come into play at trial as well.
Court: The trial, we’ll need three. We’ll need one for every
Defendant.
Id. at p. 32.
-6-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶8} The court held another pretrial on January 27, 2015. Present in the
courtroom were the judge, prosecutor, all three co-defendants with separate
counsel, and Coe, serving as the interpreter. The trial court reminded Coe that he
was still under oath, and Coe acknowledged the same. At the onset, the court
asked Coe, “Are you still interpreting for them?”, and Coe replied, “Yeah.” Jan.
27, 2015 Hrg., p. 2.
{¶9} At this hearing, the court tried to clear up some issues with the case.
The court, prosecutor, and counsel for the co-defendants engaged in a lengthy
discussion regarding a translation of the letter written by Guerra to Sanchez. The
prosecutor and Jones conceded that the letter was not of any significance to
Gaspareno, although Jones stated that he might be able to use the letter to
Gaspareno’s advantage.
{¶10} The only significant part of the pretrial that concerned Gaspareno
was that Jones raised an issue regarding bench notes from a Bureau of Criminal
Investigations lab technician. The court ordered that the State provide those notes
to Jones. The pretrial concluded after a new trial date was chosen.
-7-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶11} Negotiations continued between Gaspareno and the State, and,
ultimately, Gaspareno agreed to plead guilty to a lesser charge of trafficking in
heroin in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(1) & (C)(6), a felony of the fifth degree.4
{¶12} A change of plea hearing was held on February 10, 2015. Present in
the courtroom were the judge, prosecutor, Gaspareno and his counsel, and Coe
serving as the interpreter. At the beginning of the hearing, the trial court stated,
“Mr. Coe is [sic] previously been qualified and appointed as an interpreter in this
case.” Feb. 10, 2015 Hrg., p. 1. Coe was then sworn in by the court. When asked
if he had any questions regarding Coe’s service, Gaspareno replied that he did not.
{¶13} Next, the State indicated that Gaspareno would be pleading guilty to
an amended charge of trafficking in heroin. Specifically, references to the weight
and the crime being committed within the vicinity of a juvenile would be removed.
The State recommended that Gaspareno be placed on community control for a two
year period.
{¶14} The court proceeded to engage in a colloquy with Gaspareno. The
record notes that, “Thereupon, all questions directed to [Gaspareno] by the
Court were translated to [Gaspareno] by Mr. Coe, answered by [Gaspareno,]
and relayed back to the Court through the Interpreter, Mr. Coe.” (Emphasis
4
We note that the Entry of Guilty Plea form has the case caption as “The State of Ohio v. Cristinoher
Gaspareno.” (Docket No. 36, p. 1). We find that this is a simple clerical error and has no bearing on the
case.
-8-
Case No. 9-15-15
sic.) Id. at p. 6. Gaspareno indicated that he understood that he was to ask the
court to clarify anything that seemed confusing. Gaspareno stated that he could
not read or write English, could read and write some Spanish, but very little,
although he indicated that he could understand spoken Spanish. Gaspareno told
the court that he understood Coe’s interpretations.
{¶15} Gaspareno indicated that he had time to talk with his attorney and
that his attorney had advised him of his constitutional rights, the nature of the
offense, and the consequences of pleading guilty. He also stated that he was
satisfied with this advice.
{¶16} The court asked the State to present what the evidence would have
shown had the case gone to trial. Specifically, the State said that “[Gaspareno]
was aware that the Heroin was to be sold to the Confidential Informants that day
but was not aware of the amount of the Heroin that was sold.” Id. at p. 8. The
court asked the State what was the specific allegations as to Gaspareno’s
participation, and the State responded, “That when they left the residence in
Columbus, Ohio that [Gaspareno] knew that there would be Heroin sold to two
confideni - - or excuse me, to two individuals in Waldo, Ohio. That he
participated in the sale of that. That although he may not have arranged that - -[.]”
Id. at p. 8-9. The State was briefly interrupted but continued.
-9-
Case No. 9-15-15
Prosecutor: - - that he may not have arranged that sale by phone
but that he knew the purpose of going to Marion, Ohio,
or excuse me, Marion County, was for the sale of
Heroin. That he was a part of that and my
understanding for the confidential - - from the
confidential informants is when these sales take place
there is more than one individual that’s always present.
There’s always another man along for the buy. That
thee [sic] Defendant, Mr. Gaspareno, again, knew the
heroin was to be sold and that he acted, I guess, as a - -
a second, if you will, in the transaction.
Court: Sounds like the allegation is is [sic] that he’s there
providing additional security. Is that it?
Prosecutor: That would be correct.
Court: Okay. Any disagreement with those facts, Mr. Jones?
Jones: No, sir.
Id. at p. 9.
{¶17} The court asked Gaspareno if he understood that he was pleading to
knowingly assisting another person in selling heroin, and Gaspareno replied that
he understood. The court explained that his plea could result in a possible prison
sentence of up to 12 months and a fine of up to $2,500, and Gaspareno stated that
he understood. The court told Gaspareno that he could be placed on a term of
post-release control for up to three years, and he said he understood. The court
also explained the other possible penalties, and Gaspareno indicated he
understood. The court told Gaspareno that he could have a trial instead of
-10-
Case No. 9-15-15
pleading guilty and that the State would have to prove the case beyond a
reasonable doubt, and he stated he understood. The court explained the rest of
Gaspareno’s constitutional rights, and he said he understood. Then, the following
exchange occurred.
Court: Do you also understand that upon a plea of guilty I could
proceed immediately to sentencing and that sentencing is
up to me?
Coe: Yes.
Court: Have any promises or threats been made to you to get you
to plead guilty?
Coe: No.
Id. at p. 13. Gaspareno stated that he was pleading guilty voluntarily and that he
signed the Entry of Guilty Plea form after it was read to him and that he
understood the contents of the form.
{¶18} Jones stated that he was satisfied with the conclusion that Gaspareno
was entering the plea voluntarily, that Gaspareno fully understood his rights, the
nature of the offense, and the consequences of pleading guilty. Jones said that he
had the full opportunity to communicate with Gaspareno with the assistance of
Coe, an interpreter.
{¶19} The court asked Gaspareno if he had any questions about what was
covered at the hearing so far, and he stated that he had no questions.
-11-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶20} The court accepted Gaspareno’s plea as being knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently entered. Next, the court referred the matter to the
Probation Department to conduct a PSI. Finally, Gaspareno did not declare an
interest in any of the property subject to the forfeiture specifications.
{¶21} The Entry of Guilty Plea form was filed on February 11, 2015. By
signing, Gaspareno acknowledged, among other things, that “[his] constitutional
and statutory rights [were] explained to [him] by the Judge and by [his] attorney.
[He had] reviewed the facts and law of [his] case with [his] attorney.” (Docket
No. 36, p. 1). Gaspareno’s signature appears twice on the form as well as that of
his counsel Jones.
{¶22} A sentencing hearing was held on March 5, 2015. Present in the
courtroom were the judge, prosecutor, Gaspareno and his counsel, and Coe,
serving as the interpreter. At the onset of the hearing, the court stated, “Also
present is certified Court Interpreter, Mr. Pedro Coe.” Mar. 5, 2015 Hrg., p. 1.
Then, Coe was sworn in by the court. The court asked Gaspareno if he was “able
to understand the proceedings with the assistance of the interpreter?” Id. The
record is silent as to whether Gaspareno gave either an audible or visual response.
The next portion of the transcript states, “Thereupon, all questions directed to
[Gaspareno] by the Court were translated to [Gaspareno] by Mr. Coe,
-12-
Case No. 9-15-15
answered by [Gaspareno], and relayed back to the Court through
Interpreter, Mr. Coe.” (Emphasis sic.) Id.
{¶23} The State recommended that Gaspareno be placed on community
control sanctions and that $414 of the $4,675 forfeiture specification be
surrendered as a drug fine, noting that Gaspareno claimed no interest in the $4,261
remaining from the original total. The first forfeiture specification, involving the
car, was dismissed. The State also moved to amend the property in the second
forfeiture specification from $4,675 to $4,261.
{¶24} Jones argued that the court should impose the joint recommendation
of the State and the defense and impose community control sanctions. He also
stated that the money seized from Gaspareno should be applied to either a fine or
court costs.
{¶25} The trial court stated that it had considered the purposes and
principles of sentencing, the PSI, and the record. As to recidivism factors, the
court noted that it was hard to tell how those factors weighed since no one was
able to positively confirm Gaspareno’s identity. Thus, it was impossible to tell if
Gaspareno had a criminal record. The court stated that Gaspareno indicated that
he had been deported twice and that this factored adversely as to recidivism. As to
seriousness factors, the trial court found the crime to be very serious, noting that
the amount of heroin sold was “Felony 2 levels of Heroin[.]” Id. at p. 5.
-13-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶26} The trial court also stated that it appeared the drug transaction was
part of both organized criminal activity and criminal activity for hire. The court
explained,
[Gaspareno,] by his own statement, had made contact with the co-
Defendant from - - you know, [Gaspareno] had received contact
information while in Mexico, contacted [Guerra] then from Arizona,
came to Columbus, was here for about eight days prior to thee [sic]
transaction. Reasonable inference would be that [Gaspareno] was
bringing the drugs up from Mexico. That also seems to cooberated
[sic] by thee [sic] statements in the co-Defendants PSI which it, you
know, appears that thee [sic] drugs were given from Defendant
Gaspareno to Defendant Guerra and then sold by Defendant Guerra.
I was gonna say then the sale then was to a Confidential Operative,
as I understand it.
Id. at p. 5-6.
{¶27} Because the trial court found that Gaspareno’s conduct equated to
organized criminal activity, the court stated that it had the discretion to impose a
prison term pursuant to R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b)(ix). Thereafter, the court sentenced
Gaspareno to 12 months in prison with 102 days credited. It advised Gaspareno
that he may be placed on post-release control for up to three years. The court
forfeited Gaspareno’s interest in the amount of $4,261 pertaining to the second
forfeiture specification. Instead of a fine, the court ordered Gaspareno pay court
costs and that the $414 taken off of Gaspareno’s person was to be used to pay said
costs.
-14-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶28} After the court was finished, Jones stated that Gaspareno objected to
the prison term and asked for the appointment of appellate counsel. Jones was
immediately appointed appellate counsel.
{¶29} A judgment entry of sentencing was filed on March 6, 2015. In the
entry, it indicated that “[Gaspareno] appeared in Court with his attorney and a
Court certified Spanish language interpreter, Pedro Koe [sic] for a sentencing
hearing.” (Docket No. 44, p. 1). The entry mirrored the sentence imposed at the
hearing except in one aspect. The entry imposed a mandatory period of three
years of post-release control, which was contrary to the discretionary language
used at the hearing.
{¶30} Gaspareno filed this timely appeal, presenting the following
assignments of error for our review.
Assignment of Error No. I
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY CONSIDERING
EVIDENCE DE HORS THE RECORD; RESULTING IN THE
IMPOSITION OF A SENTENCE THAT IS UNSUPPORTED
BY THE RECORD AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND
FURTHER RESULTING IN A VIOLATION OF THE
APPELLANT’S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AS
GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ART. I,
SEC. 16 OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION AND RIGHT TO
CONFRONT WITNESSES AGAINST HIM AS
GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION AND ART. I, SEC. 10 OF THE OHIO
-15-
Case No. 9-15-15
CONSTITUTION. (TR., FEB. 10, 2015, PASSIM; TR., MAR. 5,
2015, PASSIM). [EMPHASIS SIC.]
Assignment of Error No. II
THE APPELLANT’S PLEA WAS NOT KNOWINGLY,
VOLUNTARILY, AND INTELLIGENTLY ENTERED
PURSUANT TO CRIM. R. 11(C) AND BOYKIN V. ALABAMA,
395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.CT. 1709 (1969) BECAUSE THE TRIAL
COURT FAILED TO INFORM THE APPELLANT THE
IMPOSITION OF SENTENCE WAS AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE TRIAL COURT REGARDLESS OF THE TERMS OF
THE NEGOTIATED PLEA. (TR., FEB. 10, 2015, P. 9-15).
[EMPHASIS SIC.]
Assignment of Error No. III
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR
IN IMPOSING A MANDATORY THREE-YEAR PERIOD OF
POST-RELEASE CONTROL. (TR., FEB. 10, 2015, P. 10; TR.,
MAR. 5, 2015, P. 6; JE OF SENTENCING, MAR. 5, 2015, P. 2).
Assignment of Error No. IV
THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO PROPERLY QUALIFY
THE INTERPRETER VIOLATED THE APPELLANT’S
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND MEANINGFUL
PARTICIPATION AS GUARANTEED BY THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION AND ART. I, SEC. 16 OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION; TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE OF
THE CHARGE AGAINST HIM AND ASSISTED BY
COUNSEL AS GUARANTEED BY THE SIXTH
AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ART. I,
SEC. 10. OF THE OHIO CONSTITUTION; AND TO ENTER
A VOLUNTARY, KNOWING, AND INTELLIGENT PLEA
PURSUANT TO CRIM. R. 11(C) AND BOYKIN V. ALABAMA,
395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.CT. 1709 (1969). (TR., DEC. 29, 2014,
-16-
Case No. 9-15-15
PASSIM; TR., JAN. 27, 2015, PASSIM; TR., FEB. 10, 2015,
PASSIM; TR., MAR. 5, 2015, PASSIM). [EMPHASIS SIC.]
Assignment of Error No. I
{¶31} In his first assignment of error, Gaspareno argues that the trial court
erred in sentencing him to a one year prison term based on hearsay statements
contained in his co-defendants’ pre-sentence investigations. We agree.
{¶32} “Trial courts have full discretion to impose any sentence within the
statutory range.” State v. Noble, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-14-06, 2014-Ohio-5485, ¶
9, citing State v. Saldana, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12–12–09, 2013–Ohio–1122, ¶ 20.
“A trial court’s sentence will not be disturbed on appeal absent a defendant’s
showing by clear and convincing evidence that the sentence is unsupported by the
record or otherwise contrary to law.” State v. Barrera, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12–
12–01, 2012–Ohio–3196, ¶ 20. Clear and convincing evidence is that “which will
produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the facts
sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph
three of the syllabus. “An appellate court should not, however, substitute its
judgment for that of the trial court because the trial court is in a better position to
judge the defendant’s chances of recidivism and determine the effects of the crime
on the victim.” Noble at ¶ 9, citing State v. Watkins, 3d Dist. Auglaize No. 2-04-
08, 2004–Ohio–4809, ¶ 16.
-17-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶33} A person convicted of a felony of the fifth degree must be sentenced
to a community control sanction of at least one year if the requirements of R.C.
2929.13(B)(1)(a) are met. R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) provides,
Except as provided in division (B)(1)(b) of this section, if an
offender is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony of the fourth or
fifth degree that is not an offense of violence or that is a qualifying
assault offense, the court shall sentence the offender to a community
control sanction of at least one year’s duration if all of the following
apply:
The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty
to a felony offense.
The most serious charge against the offender at the time of
sentencing is a felony of the fourth or fifth degree.
If the court made a request of the department of rehabilitation and
correction pursuant to division (B)(1)(c) of this section, the
department, within the forty-five-day period specified in that
division, provided the court with the names of, contact information
for, and program details of one or more community control sanctions
of at least one year's duration that are available for persons
sentenced by the court.
The offender previously has not been convicted of or pleaded guilty
to a misdemeanor offense of violence that the offender committed
within two years prior to the offense for which sentence is being
imposed.
{¶34} However, a trial court has the discretion to impose a prison term for a
person convicted of a felony of the fifth degree if one of eleven factors is present.
R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(b). The relevant factor in this case is if “[t]he offender
committed the offense for hire or as part of an organized criminal activity.” R.C.
-18-
Case No. 9-15-15
2929.13(B)(1)(b)(ix). The sentencing statute provides that a person convicted of a
felony of the fifth degree can be sentenced to a prison term of six to twelve
months. R.C. 2929.14(A)(5).
{¶35} It is well established that the rules of evidence do not apply to
sentencing hearings. See State v. Cook, 83 Ohio St.3d 404, 425 (1998). “Courts
have historically been permitted to consider hearsay evidence, evidence of an
offender’s criminal history, the facts concerning charges dismissed, and even
offenses for which charges were not filed, but were addressed in the presentence
investigation (“PSI”).” State v. Ropp, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-13-21, 2014-Ohio-
2462, ¶ 4, citing State v. Bowsher, 186 Ohio App.3d 162, 2010-Ohio-951 (2d
Dist.).
{¶36} Crim.R. 32.2 requires that courts order a presentence investigation
and report before imposing community control sanctions in a felony case. PSIs
are additionally governed by R.C. 2951.03. It reads, in part,
No person who has been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a felony
shall be placed under a community control sanction until a written
presentence investigation report has been considered by the court. If
a court orders the preparation of a presentence investigation report
pursuant to this section * * *, the officer making the report shall
inquire into the circumstances of the offense and the criminal record,
social history, and present condition of the defendant, all information
available regarding any prior adjudications of the defendant as a
delinquent child and regarding the dispositions made relative to
those adjudications, and any other matters specified in Criminal Rule
32.2. * * *
-19-
Case No. 9-15-15
R.C. 2951.03(A)(1).
{¶37} If a PSI is ordered, R.C. 2951.03 gives several rights to a defendant
and his or her counsel. Specifically, defendant and/or defendant’s counsel is
entitled: (1) to read the report subject to a few restrictions; (2) to comment on the
report and possibly introduce evidence that is relevant to any factual inaccuracies
contained in the report; and (3) to comment upon an oral or written summary of
the report performed by the court if the court determines that certain pieces of the
report cannot be disclosed to the defendant or defendant’s counsel. R.C.
2951.03(B)(1)-(3).
{¶38} PSIs and the contents of an oral or written summary of a PSI are
considered confidential information. R.C. 2951.03(D)(1). Moreover,
The court, an appellate court, authorized probation officers,
investigators, and court personnel, the defendant, the defendant’s
counsel, the prosecutor who is handling the prosecution of the case
against the defendant, and authorized personnel of an institution to
which the defendant is committed may inspect, receive copies of,
retain copies of, and use a presentence investigation report or a
written or oral summary of a presentence investigation only for the
purposes of or only as authorized by Criminal Rule 32.2 or this
section, division (F)(1) of section 2953.08, section 2947.06, or
another section of the Revised Code.
Id.{¶39} Gaspareno was convicted of a felony of the fifth degree, which could
result in a prison term of six to twelve months. Although Gaspareno’s sentence
-20-
Case No. 9-15-15
falls within the statutory guideline, Gaspareno was not convicted of a violent
felony. Thus, Gaspareno should have been sentenced to a community control
sanction if the requirements in R.C. 2929.13(B)(1)(a) were met. Yet, the trial
court did not expressly consider this subsection, but rather found that it possessed
the discretion to impose a prison sentence because Gaspareno committed the
offense for hire or as part of an organized criminal activity, pursuant to R.C.
2929.13(B)(1)(b)(ix). In reaching its decision, the trial court stated,
It’s also indication [sic] that this is a part of both organized criminal
activity and criminal activity for hire. Thee [sic] Defendant, by his
own statement, had made contact with the co-Defendant from - - you
know, he had received contact information while in Mexico,
contacted the Defendant then from Arizona, came to Columbus, was
here for about eight days prior to thee [sic] transaction. Reasonable
inference would be that the Defendant was bringing the drugs up
from Mexico. That also seems to [be] cooberated [sic] by thee [sic]
statements in the co-Defendants [sic] PSI which it, you know,
appears that thee [sic] drugs were given from Defendant Gaspareno
to Defendant Guerra and then sold by Defendant Guerra. I was
gonna say then the sale then was to a Confidential Operative, as I
understand it.
Mar. 5, 2015 Hrg., p. 5-6. The court provided no other reasons justifying its
decision.
{¶40} Gaspareno argues that the trial court erred by considering the
statements made by the co-defendants in their separate PSIs. Specifically, he
argues that without the hearsay statements there was no evidence to suggest that
he participated in a crime for hire or in an organized criminal activity.
-21-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶41} It is clear that the statements contained in Guerra and Sanchez’s PSIs
are hearsay. Generally, hearsay is admissible in sentencing because the rules of
evidence do not apply at a sentencing hearing. Further, hearsay statements
contained in a defendant’s PSI may be considered when imposing a sentence upon
that particular defendant. State v. Siefker, 3d Dist. Putnam No. 12-10-14, 2011-
Ohio-1867, ¶ 20. The question here, however, is whether a court can consider
statements made in two co-defendants’ PSIs (Guerra and Sanchez) for the
purposes of imposing a sentence upon a third co-defendant (Gaspareno).
{¶42} The State approaches this question with the concept that essentially
all hearsay is hearsay and that hearsay can be used for the purposes of sentencing.
In support, the State cites State v. Mescher, 3d Dist. Shelby No. 17-86-17, 1987
WL 17252 (Sept. 16, 1987). In Mescher, the owner of a local bar was convicted
of selling beer to a juvenile. Id. at *1. At sentencing, the court based its decision
on the fact that it had heard testimony in other cases involving juveniles drinking
beer at the defendant’s bar. Id. Ultimately, this court upheld the defendant’s
sentence after discussing the historical acceptance of hearsay statements being
used at sentencing. Thus, the State urges us to follow Mescher and affirm.
{¶43} There is one key fact that distinguishes Mescher from this case. In
this case, the contested hearsay appeared in two separate co-defendants’ PSIs. As
Gaspareno points out, the information contained in a PSI is only made available to
-22-
Case No. 9-15-15
certain parties. Absent from this statutory list are co-defendants or their counsel.
Thus, neither Gaspareno nor his counsel would have been able to read, examine,
or otherwise see the PSIs filed in Guerra and Sanchez’s cases. The information
contained in those PSIs is confidential. Importantly, the information used by the
court in Mescher was not confidential, but was of public record.
{¶44} Moreover, by considering the statements in the co-defendants’ PSIs,
the court has denied Gaspareno of the rights that he would have been entitled to if
the PSI were his. R.C. 2951.03(B)(1) requires that a defendant and/or the
defendant’s counsel be given an opportunity to read the defendant’s PSI so that
they may have an opportunity to prepare a defense as to any factual inaccuracies in
the report. Nowhere in the record does it indicate that Gaspareno or his counsel
was given an opportunity to review the co-defendants’ PSIs. More importantly,
there could never be an opportunity for Gaspareno or his counsel to review the
PSIs given their confidential nature. Thus, the court erred when it considered the
statements made by co-defendants Guerra and Sanchez in their PSIs for the
purposes of sentencing Gaspareno.
{¶45} Further, the error committed was not harmless because once the
hearsay statements are removed from the equation, the only remaining evidence is
the trial court’s own speculation of what happened in the case. In his PSI,
Gaspareno never claimed that he acted as a drug mule. The State never accused
-23-
Case No. 9-15-15
Gaspareno as being the person responsible for supplying the heroin. Rather, the
State’s theory was that Gaspareno was serving as security. The indictment does
not contain any language alleging that Gaspareno was a drug mule. All there is
left is the court’s speculation. Such speculation is insufficient to support a finding
that Gaspareno engaged in a crime for hire or organized criminal activity.
{¶46} Accordingly, we sustain Gaspareno’s first assignment of error.5
Assignment of Error No. II
{¶47} In his second assignment of error, Gaspareno argues that his guilty
plea was not entered knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently. Specifically,
Gaspareno argues that the trial court was required to inform him that the trial court
was not bound to follow the joint recommendation of the State and the defense
regarding sentencing. We disagree.
{¶48} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) imposes several requirements a trial court must
perform before accepting a defendant’s guilty plea in a felony case. Specifically,
the court must do the following:
5
Although it is not clear from the record on appeal, it appears that Gaspareno has served his 12 month
prison sentence. An order staying Gaspareno’s sentence was never issued. He was sentenced in March
2015 and was given credit for 102 days served in jail. This means that Gaspareno would have been
released sometime in late November or early December of 2015. If that is the case, the trial court would
lack the authority to resentence Gaspareno. See State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526, 2013-Ohio-5014, ¶
18 (“* * * when the entirety of a prison sanction has been served, the defendant’s expectation in finality in
his sentence becomes paramount, and his sentence for that crime may no longer be modified”); State v.
Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350, 2012-Ohio-5636, ¶ 24. Since we cannot see, based on the record before us,
that Gaspareno has indeed served his sentence in full, the trial court will need to determine whether it
retains the authority to resentence Gaspareno.
-24-
Case No. 9-15-15
(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily,
with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum
penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible
for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at
the sentencing hearing.
(b) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant
understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the
court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and
sentence.
(c) Informing defendant and determining that the defendant
understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to
jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have
compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor,
and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be
compelled to testify against himself or herself.
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)-(c).
{¶49} “The rule is intended to ensure that guilty pleas are entered
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Phillips, 3d Dist. Van Wert
No. 15-12-02, 2012-Ohio-5950, ¶ 24, citing State v. Windle, 4th Dist. Hocking No.
03CA16, 2004-Ohio-6827, ¶7. “ ‘Criminal Rule 11(C)(2) clearly and distinctly
mandates that the trial judge, before accepting a guilty plea in a felony case,
inform the defendant of his rights as expressed in the rule and determine that he
understands these rights and that he is making his guilty plea voluntarily.’ ” State
v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 88 (1977), quoting State v. Younger, 46 Ohio App.2d
269 (8th Dist.1975), syllabus. Failure to ensure that a plea is entered knowingly,
-25-
Case No. 9-15-15
intelligently, and voluntarily renders its enforcement unconstitutional. State v.
Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996).
{¶50} An appellate court’s review of a Crim.R. 11(C)(2) colloquy is
contingent on whether the defendant complains of either a failure to inform him of
a constitutional right or a failure to inform him of a non-constitutional right. State
v. Thomas, 3d Dist. Mercer No. 10-10-17, 2011-Ohio-4337, ¶ 20-21. If the appeal
concerns constitutional rights, then we review the colloquy to ensure that the trial
court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176,
2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 18. On the other hand, if the appeal concerns non-
constitutional rights, then we review the colloquy to ensure that the trial court
substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85,
2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 11-12. “Substantial compliance means that under the totality
of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implication of his
plea and the rights he is waiving.” State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1990).
“Furthermore, a defendant who challenges his guilty plea on the basis that the
advisement for the nonconstitutional rights did not substantially comply with
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b) must also show a prejudicial effect, meaning the plea
would not have been otherwise entered.” State v. Anderson, 7th Dist. Mahoning
No. 11MA125, 2012-Ohio-2759, ¶ 14, citing Veney at ¶ 15, citing Nero at 108; see
also Thomas at ¶ 21. In this case, Gaspareno argues that the trial court failed to
-26-
Case No. 9-15-15
sufficiently notify him that the trial court could depart from the joint sentencing
recommendation and that it had the discretion to impose whatever sentence the
court deemed necessary, subject to certain statutory limitations.
{¶51} Gaspareno’s complaint fails to implicate any of the constitutional
rights enumerated in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). See Veney at ¶ 19. In Veney, the
Supreme Court of Ohio found that Crim.R. 11(C) encompasses five constitutional
rights: (1) the right to a jury trial; (2) the right to confront one’s accusers; (3) the
privilege against self-incrimination; (4) the right to use the compulsory process to
obtain witnesses; and (5) the right to require the state to prove the defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., citing Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238,
243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed. 2d 274 (1969); State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473(1981), paragraph one of the syllabus.
{¶52} Further, it appears that Gaspareno’s complaint does not invoke a
non-constitutional right. See Anderson at ¶ 14. In Anderson, the Seventh District
Court of Appeals, in interpreting Crim.R. 11(C), stated that there are four non-
constitutional rights that a defendant must be informed of: (1) the nature of the
charges; (2) the maximum penalty involved, including an advisement on post-
release control, if applicable; (3) whether the defendant is eligible for probation or
community control sanctions; and (4) that after the defendant enters his plea of
guilty or no contest, the trial court may proceed directly to sentencing. Id., citing
-27-
Case No. 9-15-15
Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b); Veney at ¶ 10-13; State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86,
2008-Ohio-509, ¶ 19-26.
{¶53} Since Gaspareno’s complaint has not traditionally been considered a
non-constitutional right, the question becomes should we recognize such a right
here. This court has already addressed this particular question and found that a
“trial court is under no obligation to inform the defendant that it will not follow
the sentencing recommendation.” State v. Graham, 3d Dist. Union No. 14-04-28,
2005-Ohio-1431, ¶ 11; see also State v. Coats, 3d Dist. Mercer Nos. 10-09-04, 10-
09-05, 2009-Ohio-3534, ¶ 21. Thus, although it may be the preferred practice to
inform the defendant that the trial court is not bound by the sentencing
recommendation, such is not required. Coats at ¶ 21.
{¶54} Further, even if the trial court would have been required to warn
Gaspareno that it was not bound by any sentencing recommendation, we find that
the court still substantially complied with the requirements of Crim.R. 11.
Specifically, the trial court advised Gaspareno of the possible maximum sentence,
one year in prison and a fine of up to $2,500, for the crime to which he was
pleading. Gaspareno indicated that he was aware of this sentence. Moreover, the
court asked Gaspareno if he understood “that upon a plea of guilty I could proceed
immediately to sentencing and that sentencing is up to me?” Feb. 10, 2015 Hrg.,
p. 13. Gaspareno replied, “Yes.” Id. Finally, the trial court asked Gaspareno,
-28-
Case No. 9-15-15
“Have any promises or threats been made to you to get you to plead guilty?” Id.Gaspareno replied, “No.” Id. Such inquiries were sufficient to substantially
comply with Crim.R. 11. See State v. Crable, 7th Dist. Belmont No. 04 BE 17,
2004-Ohio-6812, ¶14.
{¶55} This court has been consistent with its position to not read a
requirement into a statute that is not present in the statutory language. See State v.
Blanton, 3d Dist. Marion No. 9-15-07, 2015-Ohio-4620, ¶ 34; State v. Faber, 3d
Dist. Seneca No. 13-15-01, 2015-Ohio-3720, ¶ 36. Although the Criminal Rules
of Procedure are not statutes, the same interpretation rules apply. State v. Athon,
1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-110236, C-110237, C-110238, C-110239, C-110290,
2012-Ohio-765, ¶ 7, reversed on other grounds, 136 Ohio St.3d 43, 2013-Ohio-
1956; State v. Edgeworth, 6th Dist. Lucas No. 7947, 1975 WL 182372, *5 (Nov.
14, 1975). “Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous and
conveys a clear and definite meaning, there is no need to apply rules of statutory
interpretation.” State v. Taylor, 114 Ohio App.3d 416, 422 (2d Dist.1996).
{¶56} The language in Crim.R. 11(C) is clear and unambiguous; it does not
require a trial court to inform the defendant that the trial court has the discretion to
impose a sentence that is different than that recommended by a plea agreement as
we have previously found in Graham. In this case, the trial court was not required
to inform Gaspareno that the trial court had the discretion to sentence him to any
-29-
Case No. 9-15-15
sentence other than that recommended by the State and defense. Additionally, the
trial court complied with all the other requirements of Crim.R. 11. The trial court
informed Gaspareno of all the constitutional rights he waived as a result of
pleading guilty and of all the non-constitutional rights. Thus, Gaspareno’s
argument lacks merit.
{¶57} Accordingly, we overrule Gaspareno’s second assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. III
{¶58} In his third assignment of error, Gaspareno argues that the trial court
erred by imposing a mandatory three year period of post-release control. We
agree.
{¶59} The State concedes that the trial court so erred. We have reviewed
the record and find that, while the trial court notified Gaspareno that he could be
subjected to a period of post-release control of up to three years at the sentencing
hearing, the entry sentencing Gaspareno mistakenly imposed a mandatory three
year period of post-release control. Thus, we vacate Gaspareno’s sentence,
regarding post-release control, and remand the case to the trial court so that it may
correct the sentencing entry. See State ex rel. Womack v. Marsh, 128 Ohio St.3d
303, 2011-Ohio-229, ¶ 14 (“Because appellant was notified of the proper term of
postrelease control at his sentencing hearing and the error was merely clerical in
-30-
Case No. 9-15-15
nature, [the judge] was authorized to correct the mistake by nunc pro tunc entry
without holding a new sentencing hearing.”).
{¶60} Accordingly, we sustain Gaspareno’s third assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. IV
{¶61} In his fourth assignment of error, Gaspareno argues that the trial
court failed to properly qualify the interpreter, Coe. As a result, Gaspareno argues
that he was never informed of the nature of the charge against him and that his
plea was not entered voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. We disagree.
{¶62} Gaspareno failed to object to Coe’s qualifications at any point during
any of the proceedings. Accordingly, he has waived all but plain error. State v.
Bump, 3d Dist. Logan No. 8-12-04, 2013-Ohio-1006, ¶ 81. To have plain error
under Crim.R. 52(B), the error must be an “obvious” defect in the trial
proceedings that affected the defendant’s “substantial rights.” State v. Barnes, 94
Ohio St.3d 21, 27 (2002). Plain error is to be used “with the utmost caution, under
exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.”
Id. Further, plain error only exists where “but for the error, the outcome of the
trial would clearly have been otherwise.” State v. Biros, 78 Ohio St.3d 426, 431
(1997).
{¶63} Sup.R. 88 states that,
-31-
Case No. 9-15-15
A court shall appoint a foreign language interpreter in a case or court
function in either of the following situations:
(1) A party * * * who is limited English proficient or non-English
speaking request a foreign language interpreter and the court
determines the services of the interpreter are necessary for the
meaningful participation of the party * * *;
(2) Absent a request from a party * * * for a foreign language
interpreter, the court concludes the party * * * is limited English
proficient or non-English speaking and determines the services of
the interpreter are necessary for the meaningful participation of the
party * * *.6
Sup.R. 88 also provides a hierarchy for preferred interpreter candidates: (1) a
Supreme Court of Ohio certified foreign language interpreter; (2) a provisionally
qualified foreign language interpreter; (3) a language-skilled foreign language
interpreter; and (4) telephonic interpreter. See Sup.R. 88(D)(1)-(4). Further, “To
ensure the accuracy and quality of interpretation, a court shall appoint two or more
foreign language interpreters * * * for a case or court function involving multiple
parties, witnesses, or jurors requiring the services of an interpreter.”7 Sup.R.
88(F)(2). Finally, “A court shall administer an oath or affirmation to a foreign
language interpreter appointed pursuant to division (A) of this rule * * * in
accordance with Evid.R. 604.” Sup.R. 88(I).
6
R.C. 2311.14(A)(1) provides for a similar requirement. It also requires the same oath to be given that is
required under Sup.R. 88(I).
7
Gaspareno does not argue that the failure to have separate interpreters for each co-defendant during each
pre-trial constituted plain error, thus we will not consider that argument.
-32-
Case No. 9-15-15
{¶64} In the case before us, the only instance of the court qualifying the
interpreter is when the court first introduced Coe on the record. At the December
29, 2014 hearing, the trial court was stating who all was present and said, “Also
present with the Defendants is certified interpreter Pedro Coe who has performed
- - providing interpretation services for the Defendants today.” Dec. 29, 2014
Hrg., p. 2. Had Gaspareno objected to Coe’s qualifications, either he or the court
would have had the opportunity to question Coe regarding his qualifications.
Since Gaspareno failed to do so, no information exists in the record to show that
Coe was unqualified to serve as an interpreter. Finally, Gaspareno has not
presented evidence to suggest that any of Coe’s interpretations were inaccurate.
Thus, Gaspareno has failed to overcome his burden of showing an obvious error in
the proceedings in this regard.
{¶65} Gaspareno also argues that plain error is present because Coe
stopped interpreting during the first pre-trial. At the December 29, 2014 hearing,
Coe was in the act of interpreting for the defendants when the following exchange
occurred:
Lowther: From what I’ve received I’ve not seen anything that would
I guess - - okay - -
Coe: They stated that that - -
Lowther: No. No. No.
-33-
Case No. 9-15-15
Doyle: I don’t want them saying anything. I don’t want my
client saying anything. Unless you run it by me.
Court: Right. Right. If there’s something they want to
communicate to their attorney we can allow ya [sic] to
communicate that to their attorney. I don’t want you to
communicate it out in open Court.
Coe: Okay. No problem.
Id. at p. 15. For approximately one and a half pages of the pre-trial transcript, Coe
was not interpreting for the defendants. The content of that portion surrounded the
letter written by Guerra to Sanchez and who would be interpreting the letter.
Gaspareno’s counsel did indicate his opinion during this exchange regarding
whether Coe should be the one to translate the letter. After the court was made
aware that Coe was no longer interpreting, the court instructed Coe to not stop
interpreting for any reason.
{¶66} Assuming that this was an obvious mistake, Gaspareno has failed to
show how his substantial rights were affected. Most importantly, the concern
raised by Gaspareno’s attorney was addressed by the court and his attorney again,
shortly after Coe was instructed to continue interpreting. Thus, any error was
corrected.
{¶67} Finally, Gaspareno argues that his plea was not entered knowingly,
intelligently, or voluntarily based on the ineffectiveness of the interpreter. As we
stated in more detail supra, Gaspareno entered his plea knowingly, intelligently,
-34-
Case No. 9-15-15
and voluntarily. Further, any argument that Coe’s ineffectiveness caused
Gaspareno to enter into a plea that was neither knowingly, intelligently, or
voluntarily inherently involves the argument that the court failed to properly
qualify Coe. Again, we found supra that Gaspareno failed to prove that Coe was
not properly qualified by the court.
{¶68} Accordingly, we overrule Gaspareno’s fourth assignment of error.
{¶69} Having found error prejudicial to Gaspareno, in some of the
particulars assigned and argued, we affirm, in part, reverse, in part, the judgment
of the trial court, and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
Judgment Affirmed, in Part,
Reversed, in Part, and
Cause Remanded
SHAW, P.J., concurs in Judgment Only.
WILLAMOWSKI, J., concurs.
/jlr
-35-