# State v. Oluoch, 07ap-45 (10-18-2007)

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 18, 2007 · 2007 Ohio 5560

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3731137

## Case

- **Full name:** State of Ohio v. Wilson T. [Oluoch]
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 18, 2007
- **Citations:** 2007 Ohio 5560
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** FARMER, J.
- **Cited by:** 7 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3731137

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting the appellant's "contention that his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to obtain an interpreter during appellant's plea hearing" as the "record established that no language barrier precluded appellant from understanding what transpired during the pl…
- rejecting appellant's contention his counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to obtain an interpreter during appellant's plea hearing where the record established no language barrier precluded appellant from understanding what transpired during the plea hearing

## Opinion text

{¶ 52} Because I can conceive of no circumstances in which the advice given about the consequences of Wilson T. Oluoch's plea of guilty could be construed as substantial compliance with the clear mandate of R.C. 2943.031 (A), I would sustain the second assignment of error in toto and remand the case with instructions to vacate the guilty pleas. *Page 25
{¶ 53} Mr. Oluoch was told his guilty pleas "could jeopardize your status here in this country." He was not told that he almost assuredly would be deported, that he would never be allowed to return to the country and that he would be permanently barred from becoming a naturalized citizen. R.C. 2943.031 (A) is extremely clear and the fact that the trial court did not comply with it is equally clear.
{¶ 54} Because I would sustain the second assignment of error in toto, I would find the remaining assignments of error to be moot. Because the majority only sustained the second assignment of error in part, I dissent. I concur with sustaining the second assignment of error. *Page 1

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3731137. Public record. Not legal advice.