E. Cleveland v. Zapo
2011 Ohio 6757
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- This criminal appeal concerns Lynette Zapo’s conviction for disorderly conduct in East Cleveland Municipal Court.
- Police responded to a domestic-violence incident at 15995 Nelacrest Rd on March 15, 2011; Zapo and Tammy Chizom were intoxicated and fighting.
- At arraignment, Zapo pled no contest to disorderly conduct; the city amended the charge; both defendants pled no contest and were found guilty.
- Zapo challenges Crim.R. 11 compliance, arguing the court failed to explain the effect of her no-contest plea.
- The appellate court reverses the conviction, vacates the plea, and remands for further proceedings due to Crim.R. 11(E) noncompliance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 11(E) was satisfied for a petty-offense plea | Zapo contends the court failed to inform her of the plea's effect | City argues partial/noncompliance analysis applies | Crim.R. 11(E) not satisfied; complete noncompliance; plea vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (multitier Crim.R. 11 analysis for nonconstitutional rights in felony cases (applied to petty offenses))
- Parma v. Buckwald, 2009-Ohio-4032 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2009) (additional inquiry if court partially complied; prejudice required for sale of plea validity)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (requirement to inform defendant of Plea’s effect using Crim.R. 11(B) language)
- N. Royalton v. Semenchuk, 2010-Ohio-6197 (Ohio App. 8th Dist. 2010) (reversible error where Crim.R. 11 failure to comply in plea proceedings)