[Cite as State v. Flores-Mata, 2024-Ohio-2987.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

)ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SUMMIT )

STATE OF OHIO

Appellee

v.

EDELMIRO FLORES-MATA

Appellant

C.A. No. 30772

APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT

ENTERED IN THE

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

COUNTY OF SUMMIT, OHIO

CASE No. CR 21 11 4059(B)

DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Dated: August 7, 2024

STEVENSON, Presiding Judge.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Edelmiro Flores-Mata, appeals the judgment of the Summit 

County Court of Common Pleas that found him guilty of trafficking in cocaine with a major drug 

and criminal forfeiture specification, aggravated trafficking in drugs, and having weapons under 

disability with multiple criminal forfeiture specifications. For the reasons set forth below, we 

affirm. 

I.

{¶2} Mr. Flores-Mata pleaded guilty to the above-referenced crimes and was sentenced. 

His motion for leave to file a delayed appeal was granted. He asserts two assignments of error for 

our review. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR I

THE COURT FAILED TO ADEQUATELY ADVISE MR. FLORES-MATA 

OF THE RESULTS OF HIS CONVICTION AS A NON[-]CITIZEN IN 

THAT R.C. 2943.031(A) REQUIRES A VERBATIM WARNING READ AS 
2

 

SET FORTH IN R.C. 2[9]43.031, AND THE FAILURE TO DO SO IS A 

VIOLATION OF LAW AND IS PLAIN ERROR. 

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR II

THE PLEA ENTERED BY EDELMIRO FLORES-MATA IS INVALID 

BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN ENTERED IN A KNOWING, 

INTELLIGENT, AND VOLUNTARY MANNER AS A RESULT OF THE 

COURT’S FAILURE TO ADVISE HIM OF THE THREE REQUIRED 

VERBATIM WARNINGS OF R.C. 2943.031. 

{¶3} Mr. Flores-Mata’s assignments of error will be addressed in a consolidated fashion 

for ease of analysis. 

{¶4} At the plea hearing, the trial court engaged in the following colloquy with Mr. 

Flores-Mata: 

Q: (THE COURT) Okay. Look, also I need to ask you, Mr. Mata, are you a U.S. 

citizen?

A: (MR. FLORES-MATA) No. 

Q: Okay. Look, do you know that you are subject to deportation --

A: Yes. 

Q: Hold on there. 

-- for conviction for these drug offenses? 

What is your country of origin? 

A: Mexico. 

DEFENSE COUNSEL: ... Mr. Flores-Mata was once charged by the federal 

government with illegal entry into the United States. He served 30 months in 

federal detention and was then deported. We believe there is a secret federal 

indictment about unlawful reentry pending against him at this time, and he is well 

aware that he would be deported based on this plea whenever he finishes his 

relationship with the various governments. 

Q: (THE COURT): Yeah, I just want to make sure that you understand the 

ramifications...I mean, you could be getting a lot more greater sentence on these. 

But regardless of that, this does subject you to possible deportation back to Mexico, 

and, I don’t know, sometimes the authorities wait until you’ve served your sentence 

here, which is what they usually do, and/or they could deport you before that. 
3

 

But I want to make sure that you understand that that is a likelihood, a great 

likelihood, if not a certainty that you will get deported because of these convictions; 

do you understand? 

A: Yes, ma’am. 

{¶5} R.C. 2943.031(A) sets forth the trial court’s requirements for notifying non-citizens 

of the consequences of a plea and resulting conviction and states as follows: 

Except as provided in division (B) of this section, prior to accepting a plea of guilty 

or a plea of no contest to an indictment, information, or complaint charging a felony 

or a misdemeanor other than a minor misdemeanor if the defendant previously has 

not been convicted of or pleaded guilty to a minor misdemeanor, the court shall 

address the defendant personally, provide the following advisement to the 

defendant that shall be entered in the record of the court, and determine that the 

defendant understands the advisement:

“If you are not a citizen of the United States, you are hereby advised that conviction 

of the offense to which you are pleading guilty (or no contest, when applicable) 

may have the consequences of deportation, exclusion from admission to the United 

States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”

{¶6} Mr. Flores-Mata argues in his first assignment of error that although the trial court 

advised him that he was subject to deportation, it did not advise him of the consequences of 

exclusion from admission nor denial of naturalization as required by the imperatives of R.C. 

2943.031(A). He argues that a verbatim warning was required in order to understand all the 

ramifications of a plea, and that the trial court’s failure to do so was an “obvious defect” in the 

plea colloquy that prejudiced his substantial right to make an intelligent plea. 

R.C. 2943.031(D) sets forth the consequences of a trial court's failure to comply 

with R.C. 2943.031(A):

“Upon motion of the defendant, the court shall set aside the judgment and permit 

the defendant to withdraw a plea of guilty...and enter a plea of not guilty...if, after 

the effective date of this section, the court fails to provide the defendant the 

advisement described in division (A) of this section, the advisement is required by 

that division, and the defendant shows that he is not a citizen of the United States 

and that the conviction of the offense to which he pleaded guilty or no contest may 

result in his being subject to deportation, exclusion from admission to the United 

States, or denial of naturalization pursuant to the laws of the United States.”
4

 

(Emphasis added.). State v. Francis, 2004-Ohio-6894, ¶ 21-22.

{¶7} In Francis, the Ohio Supreme Court explained “that a motion under R.C. 

2943.031(D) ‘and an appeal from the denial of the motion provide the exclusive remedies’ for a 

trial court’s alleged failure to comply with R.C. 2943.031(A).” Id. at ¶ 35, quoting State ex rel. 

White v. Suster, 2004-Ohio-719, ¶ 7, citing State v. Garmendia, 2003-Ohio-3769, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.); 

and State v. Rodriguez, 2002-Ohio-3978, ¶ 16 (12th Dist.). This is because a defendant, to establish 

prejudice from the lack of the statutory warning, “is not automatically entitled to relief under R.C. 

2943.031(D) if a trial court failed to give the statutory warning when accepting a plea[,]” and 

“must also show that he or she is not a citizen of the United States and that there may be 

deportation, exclusion, or naturalization consequences resulting from the plea.” Id. at ¶ 36. 

“‘These are matters that can be the subject of proof at a hearing in the trial court, and often will 

not be apparent from the record of a direct appeal of the original conviction.’” Id., quoting 

Garmendia at ¶ 12.

{¶8} Here, Mr. Flores-Mata did not move to withdraw his guilty plea as required by R.C. 

2943.031(D). Mr. Flores-Mata acknowledged his failure to do so and argues that the trial court’s 

failure in its advisement of the required immigration-related warnings constituted plain error. As 

noted above, the requirements for notifying defendants of the consequences of a plea and 

conviction on their immigration status are statutory and the remedy for failure to do so is also set 

by the statute. R.C. 2943.031(A) and (D). Because a motion to withdraw under R.C. 2943.031(D) 

is the exclusive remedy for the error that Mr. Flores-Mata alleges the trial court committed, Mr. 

Flores-Mata’s claim must fail as he has not availed himself of that remedy. Accordingly, Mr. 

Flores-Mata’s first assignment of error is overruled. 
5

 

{¶9} Mr. Flores-Mata’s argument under his second assignment of error is that his plea 

was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and therefore, did not meet the strict requirements of 

Crim.R. 11(C). However, the only basis for his argument is the trial court’s alleged failure to 

comply with R.C. 2943.031(A). Therefore, his argument is an improper attempt to circumvent the 

threshold requirement of R.C. 2943.031(D) that he must move to withdraw his plea. As explained 

above, Francis provides that the exclusive remedy for a violation of R.C.2943.01(A) is a motion 

to withdraw pursuant to R.C.2943.01(D). Accordingly, based on our disposition of Mr. FloresMata’s first assignment of error, his second assignment of error is also overruled for that reason 

without further analysis of the merits. 

III.

{¶10} The judgment of the Summit County Common Pleas Court is affirmed. 

Judgment affirmed. 

There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common 

Pleas, County of Summit, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy 

of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to App.R. 27.

Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of 

judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period 

for review shall begin to run. App.R. 22(C). The Clerk of the Court of Appeals is instructed to 

mail a notice of entry of this judgment to the parties and to make a notation of the mailing in the 

docket, pursuant to App.R. 30.
6

 

Costs taxed to Appellant.

SCOT STEVENSON

FOR THE COURT

CARR, J.

HENSAL, J.

CONCUR.

APPEARANCES:

RICHARD P. KUTUCHIEF, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

ELLIOT KOLKOVICH, Prosecuting Attorney, and HEAVEN R. DIMARTINO, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.