City of Brecksville v. Grabowski
98 N.E.3d 919
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Grabowski and his girlfriend were charged with misdemeanor assault after a physical altercation; each made separate 911 calls.
- On April 4, 2016, Grabowski, unrepresented, entered a no contest plea to amended charge of fourth-degree disorderly conduct and was sentenced (30 days suspended, $150 fine, costs, 1 year inactive probation).
- On April 29, 2016, Grabowski filed a postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw his plea; the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
- Appellate court sua sponte raised whether the court accepted an uncounseled plea without advising or obtaining a waiver of counsel; parties briefed Crim.R. 11(E) compliance.
- Record showed (1) the magistrate failed to advise or include on forms the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) explanation of the effect of a no contest plea, and (2) the waiver-of-counsel form was given/signed only after Grabowski announced his no contest plea.
- Majority held Grabowski’s plea must be vacated for complete Crim.R. 11(E) noncompliance and for failure to obtain an on-the-record waiver of counsel prior to accepting the plea; dissent would have affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court accepted an uncounseled plea without advising of right to counsel and obtaining a waiver | Grabowski: court failed to advise of right to counsel before accepting plea; no valid on-record waiver | City: Grabowski had earlier written acknowledgment and received oral/written advisals; waiver occurred | Held: Court erred — no valid on-the-record waiver before plea; violation of Crim.R. 44(B) |
| Whether the court complied with Crim.R. 11(E) for a petty offense by advising the effect of a no contest plea | Grabowski: court did not inform him that no contest is not an admission of guilt but an admission of truth of allegations | City: argued substantial compliance / forms and oral advisals covered rights | Held: Complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(E) — effect of no contest not explained; plea vacated |
| Whether denial of the postsentence motion to withdraw plea was an abuse of discretion (manifest injustice) | Grabowski: plea was not knowing, intelligent, voluntary due to Crim.R.11 and waiver defects — manifests injustice | City: trial court reasonably found no manifest injustice; defendant conceded no procedural defects at hearing | Held: Majority: manifest injustice shown by the rule violations; vacate plea. Dissent: would have upheld denial |
| Whether prejudice analysis is required when Crim.R.11(E) is completely unfulfilled | Grabowski: no prejudice analysis necessary when rule completely failed | City: urged substantial compliance argument | Held: Under State v. Clark, complete failure to comply requires vacatur without prejudice analysis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (distinguishes partial vs. complete Crim.R.11 noncompliance; complete failure requires vacatur)
- State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003) (Crim.R.11(E) requires petty-offense pleas to include Crim.R.11(B)(2) advisals)
- State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203 (1998) (defines "manifest injustice" standard)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (waiver of fundamental rights must affirmatively appear on the record)