E. Cleveland v. Brown, 2012 Ohio 4722

Brown was charged in November 2011 with assault under East Cleveland ordinance 537.03, a first-degree misdemeanor.
At trial in December, Brown pled no contest to an amended charge of disorderly conduct, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to a $150 fine, 90 days in jail (suspended), one year probation, and required mental health/alcohol assessments.
Brown appealed, challenging the trial court’s recording of proceedings, Crim.R. 11 compliance, and failure to advise about postrelease control.
The court held postrelease control does not apply to misdemeanor convictions, so that issue lacked merit.
The court found Crim.R. 11 compliance deficient because the plea was not properly explained as to the effect of a no contest plea, and the record was incomplete.
Because the plea proceedings were not adequately recorded or advised, the court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Crim.R.11 compliance for petty offense plea	Brown contends Crim.R.11_E compliance was not met for the no contest plea.	City argues the record supports proper plea administration and completion.	Crim.R.11_E not satisfied; plea not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
Advisement of the no contest plea effect	Record lacks advisement of Crim.R.11(B)(2) effect for no contest plea.	City asserts no error in record or procedures.	Plea vacatur warranted due to missing advisement of no contest plea effect.
Postrelease control notice for misdemeanor	Brown argued postrelease control was not properly addressed.	City contends advisement not required for misdemeanor.	Postrelease control advisement not required; issue resolved in favor of Brown on that point.

State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007-Ohio-6093) (Crim.R.11(E) requires notice of the effect of the plea for petty offenses)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent)