State v. Beasley, 49 N.E.3d 378

Andrea Beasley was stopped by police for driving while her license was suspended; officers searched her vehicle and found cocaine.
She moved to suppress the search; the trial court denied the motion after a hearing.
Defense counsel told the court on the record that Beasley wished to plead no-contest to preserve an appeal of the suppression ruling, but the court had a stated blanket policy refusing no-contest pleas.
The prosecutor did not object to counsel’s statement; following a recitation of facts Beasley instead entered a guilty plea.
The trial court convicted and sentenced Beasley; she appealed, arguing the court erred by maintaining a blanket policy refusing no-contest pleas and that she was prejudiced because she could not appeal the suppression denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a trial court may adopt a blanket policy refusing to accept no-contest pleas	Court (plaintiff-appellee) implicitly defends court discretion to accept/reject pleas but does not justify a blanket rule	Beasley: blanket refusal is improper and prejudicial because it prevents preservation of appellate rights	Error to adopt a blanket policy refusing no-contest pleas; such a policy is an abuse of discretion when it arbitrarily forecloses consideration of case-specific factors
Whether Beasley preserved the claim for appeal	Court: Beasley did not preserve error because she never actually attempted to enter a no-contest plea on the record	Beasley: counsel’s on-the-record statements that the court refused no-contest pleas preserved the issue; requiring a futile act was unnecessary	Majority: claim not preserved (forfeited) because defendant entered a guilty plea instead; dissent: sufficient preservation and counsel’s statements constituted an undisputed record of the court’s policy

State v. Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747 (1st Dist. 2009) (guilty plea operates as admission of guilt and waives appeal of most pretrial motions)
State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 (Ohio 2015) (defendant may forfeit appellate review by action inconsistent with preservation)
State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423 (2d Dist. 1997) (trial court abused discretion by maintaining blanket refusal to accept no-contest pleas and thereby prejudiced defendant’s right to appeal)
State v. Harper, 47 Ohio App.3d 109 (1st Dist. 1988) (trial court’s refusal to accept no-contest plea can be an abuse of discretion, particularly where voluntariness is affected)
State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (Ohio 1978) (appellate court may not add facts to the record on appeal)