Columbus v. Chiles, 2017 Ohio 8376

On April 7, 2016 Adam S. Chiles was cited after a car accident for four Columbus Traffic Code violations: failure to stop after an accident (first-degree misdemeanor), driving under suspension (first-degree misdemeanor), no operator's license (first-degree misdemeanor), and failure to control (minor misdemeanor).
Chiles initially pled not guilty and demanded a jury, but on July 27, 2016 he entered no contest pleas to all four counts and the trial court accepted and found him guilty; the court did not elicit an explanation of circumstances for the three non-minor-misdemeanor counts.
Chiles later challenged restitution and raised constitutional objections to the failure-to-stop ordinance; after a restitution hearing the court imposed fines, restitution, and a six-month license suspension, then stayed the sentence pending appeal.
On appeal Chiles argued (1) the trial court violated R.C. 2937.07 by entering findings of guilt on no-contest pleas without an explanation of circumstances, and (2–3) the failure-to-stop ordinance’s restitution provision violated the right to a jury trial and due process.
The Tenth District held the trial court erred because a stipulation to a finding of guilt alone does not waive the statutory explanation-of-circumstances requirement for non-minor misdemeanors, reversed and vacated Chiles’ convictions for failure to stop, driving under suspension, and no operator’s license, and remanded for resentencing on the remaining minor-misdemeanor count.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may find a defendant guilty on a no-contest plea without an explanation of circumstances under R.C. 2937.07	City: Chiles’ counsel stipulated to a finding of guilt, which permits the court to accept the plea and find guilt without further explanation	Chiles: Statute confers a substantive right; a no-contest plea requires an explanation of circumstances unless the defendant explicitly and clearly waives that requirement	Held: A bare stipulation to a finding of guilt does not waive R.C. 2937.07’s explanation-of-circumstances requirement; the court erred in entering guilt without an explanation or explicit waiver; convictions vacated and double jeopardy bars retrial
Whether CTC 2135.12(b)(1) (failure-to-stop restitution provision) violates the right to jury trial	City: Ordinance restitution provision is lawful (did not fully brief below on appeal)	Chiles: Provision authorizes additional punishment based on facts not found by jury or admitted, violating the jury-trial right	Held: Moot — court did not reach merits because conviction was vacated on procedural grounds
Whether CTC 2135.12(b)(1) violates due process as not rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest	City: Ordinance serves legitimate governmental interests (not litigated on appeal)	Chiles: Restitution provision is not rationally related and thus violates due process	Held: Moot — court did not decide because of disposition on plea error

Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1984) (R.C. 2937.07 confers substantive right; court must obtain explanation of circumstances before finding guilt on no-contest plea)
State v. Gilbo, 96 Ohio App.3d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994) (explanation of circumstances must support all elements of the offense)
State v. Kareski, 137 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2013) (if evidence is insufficient for conviction, double jeopardy bars retrial)