Cleveland v. Paramount Land Holdings, L.L.C.
2011 Ohio 3383
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- City of Cleveland filed eight cases against Paramount in 2008–2009: six minor misdemeanor health code violations and two cases alleging failure to correct building code violations.
- Paramount appeared through counsel on November 16, 2009, pleading not guilty in all cases and scheduling a supervised pretrial.
- During pretrial, city recommended fines of $500 per minor case ($3,000 total) and $10,000 for 08-CRB-37072; it also suggested dismissing 09-CRB-03590 and suspending $10,000 due to demolition costs if Paramount reimbursed demolition expenses.
- On March 18, 2010, Paramount authorized attorney Hayman via corporate resolution to enter a no contest plea; the court discussed the plea but did not solicit or record Paramount’s actual plea entry.
- In a June 18, 2010 journal entry, the court found Paramount guilty and sentenced $1,000 for each minor case, plus $400,000 for 08-CRB-37072 and $653,000 for 09-CRB-03590.
- Paramount appealed, asserting Crim.R. 11 noncompliance, improper fines, and misapplication of multiple sentences; the court reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court properly accept a no contest plea under Crim.R. 11? | Paramount contends Crim.R. 11 was not satisfied; no actual no contest plea was taken. | City argues there was a no contest plea based on the court’s statements and authorization, notwithstanding the lack of a formal plea. | Error: no contest plea not taken; Crim.R. 11 not satisfied. |
| Was Paramount informed of the effect of the no contest plea as required by Crim.R. 11(E)? | Paramount did not receive proper Crim.R. 11(E) notification about the plea’s effect. | City contends the court conveyed the plea’s effect through statements and waivers. | Error: failure to inform of the plea’s effect. |
| Was there an adequate explanation of circumstances as required by R.C. 2937.07 before finding guilt? | Paramount asserts no requirement for an explanation for minor offenses, but where mixed offenses existed, an explanation was required. | City argues explanation was either provided by documentation or not required for minor offenses. | Error: no explanation of circumstances on the record; guilty finding improper. |
| Were any fines excessive or unrelated, and were allied offenses properly treated? | Paramount challenges the aggregate fines as excessive and unrelated to the offenses; and asserts allied offenses doctrine barred multiple sentences. | City maintains fines and sentences were properly aligned to the offenses. | Remainder moot due to underlying plea and guilt process errors; however, concerns about fines are noted but not resolved on these points. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (requirements for informing defendant of plea effectiveness under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007) (interprets ‘effect of the plea’ and what must be communicated to satisfy Crim.R. 11(E))
- State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003) (clarifies the information required to inform a defendant of the plea’s effect)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (relevance of plea colloquy standards to collateral issues)