Solon v. Bollin-Booth
2012 Ohio 815
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Bollin-Booth was arrested on June 9, 2010 for domestic violence, charged as a first degree misdemeanor under R.C. 2919.25(A).
- Indigent defense was appointed; several pretrials occurred, culminating in a document titled Pretrial Agreement Form on August 9, 2010 amending the charge to a fourth-degree misdemeanor (R.C. 2919.25(C)).
- The form indicated a guilty finding on the amended charge with 90 days in jail (suspended), a $250 fine ($100 suspended), costs, and one year of active probation with conditions; the form was signed by the prosecutor, Bollin-Booth’s counsel, the magistrate, and the judge; Bollin-Booth signed acknowledging payment methods for fines/costs.
- There is no reference on the form or record to a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent plea, nor Crim.R. 11 advisement; no in-court Crim.R. 11 colloquy appears in the record.
- Bollin-Booth did not appeal; about one year later he moved to withdraw his plea; the trial court denied, and he appeals seeking to vacate the plea.
- The appellate court ultimately held the appeal was not moot due to collateral consequences and vacated the plea for Crim.R. 11 deficiencies, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the appeal moot after sentence completion? | Bollin-Booth completed the sentence and paid fines, so appeal is moot. | Collateral consequences from the DV conviction keep the appeal live. | Not moot; collateral consequences sustain appellate jurisdiction. |
| Did the trial court properly inform the defendant of the plea’s legal effect under Crim.R. 11 before accepting a no contest plea in a petty offense? | State contends advisement was not required in open court because a Crim.R. 11 B(2) warning could be in writing. | Bollin-Booth argues no valid Crim.R. 11 colloquy or advisement occurred in the record. | Complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(B)(2); advisement needed; plea vacated. |
| Did the magistrate's handling of the plea conform with Crim.R. 11 when no transcript exists? | The Plea Agreement Form and recorded entries show advisement. | There was no Crim.R. 11 hearing or proper advisement in the record; no transcript to review. | Because no Crim.R. 11 advisement was provided, the record cannot show compliance; result favors vacation of plea. |
| Was there reversible error requiring prejudice analysis due to lack of Crim.R. 11 advisement? | Even without advisement, any prejudice would be considered if plea would have been entered otherwise. | Not necessary where there is complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 in a nonconstitutional-right context. | Prejudice analysis not required; complete failure warrants vacating the plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007-Ohio-6093) (clarified Crim.R. 11 on petty offenses; advisement may be written or oral)
- State v. Golston, 71 Ohio St.3d 224 (1994-Ohio-0133) (mootness preserved when collateral consequences exist)
- In re S.J.K., 114 Ohio St.3d 23 (2007-Ohio-2621) (collateral consequences framework for appeal mootness)
- State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 (2008-Ohio-3748) (partial/nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 compliance requires prejudice analysis)
- Withrow v. City of Cleveland, 8th Dist. No. 94574 (2011-Ohio-1675) (record completeness; presuming regularity requires a reviewable record)
- Parma v. Buckwald, 2009-Ohio-4032 (8th Dist.) (prejudice analysis for Crim.R. 11 errors in nonconstitutional contexts)