2019 Ohio 4577
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- City filed complaint (Oct. 22, 2018) alleging 25 building-code violations at an Eastwood Avenue property (inoperable plumbing, damaged flooring/walls/ceiling, inoperable windows, garage/parking disrepair), dated about Sept. 14, 2017.
- Mohammad was the property manager (not the owner); at the hearing the owner later appeared, acknowledged the violations, said he would take responsibility, and had hired a contractor to begin repairs.
- At the Dec. 17, 2018 hearing Mohammad indicated he would plead no contest; the violations were read into the record, but portions of the hearing were confused and partially unintelligible.
- The court asked Mohammad whether the building-code violations existed and then accepted the no contest plea; the court imposed a $500 fine, costs, and ordered repairs by Jan. 28, 2019, warning possible jail if not completed.
- Mohammad signed a Change of Plea form, but a separate Statement of Rights (which contained the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language about the effect of a no contest plea) was unsigned and undated; the court did not orally recite the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language before accepting the plea.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded, vacating the conviction because the record did not demonstrate the trial court advised Mohammad of the required Crim.R. 11(B)(2) effect of a no contest plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(E)/11(B)(2) by advising defendant of the effect of a no contest plea | City: plea and signed Change of Plea form show acceptance was proper; plea admits facts so appeal lacks merit | Mohammad: court did not orally advise that a no contest plea is an admission of the truth of the complaint's facts or that it cannot be used against him; Statement of Rights unsigned | Reversed/vacated — court failed to advise the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language on the record; plea vacated and case remanded |
| Whether Mohammad’s post-plea factual challenges are barred by his no contest plea | City: no contest plea admits facts alleged, so sufficiency challenge fails | Mohammad: disputes factual basis (some violations repaired; he was not owner/manager) and contests court’s order | Appellate court did not resolve sufficiency because plea was vacated for Crim.R.11 noncompliance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 877 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio 2007) (Crim.R. 11 requires advising defendant of the effect of a plea)
- Girard v. Giordano, 122 N.E.3d 151 (Ohio 2018) (no contest plea is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint)
- Cleveland v. O'Donnell, 106 N.E.3d 192 (8th Dist. 2018) (failure to mention Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language is a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(E))