State v. Brown
2021 Ohio 3443
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Ashley Brown was charged with first-degree misdemeanor aggravated menacing (maximum 180 days jail), pleaded no contest per the trial court's journal entry, and was sentenced (portion suspended) and placed on intensive supervised probation.
- The plea hearing transcript lacks any oral advisement of the effect of a no-contest plea as required by Crim.R. 11(B)(2), and the record contains no signed document informing Brown of that effect (only a jury-waiver form).
- The transcript also does not show Brown verbally entering a no-contest plea; she stated she wanted to "get it over with," and the court directed her to sign forms at the bailiff station before proceeding to sentencing.
- Brown appealed, arguing the court failed to inform her of her constitutional right to a trial and the effect of her no-contest plea.
- The Ninth District concluded the offense was a petty misdemeanor (max 180 days), that the court was not required to advise of all constitutional rights for petty offenses, but that the court failed entirely to inform Brown of the effect of a no-contest plea and therefore completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11.
- The court vacated Brown's conviction and remanded for further proceedings; concurring opinions stressed (1) record does not show an entered plea, and (2) concern about limiting Crim.R. 11 protections in misdemeanor cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court properly advised Brown of the effect of a no-contest plea under Crim.R. 11(B)(2) | Brown: court failed to inform her that a no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but an admission of the facts alleged, and that the plea cannot be used in later proceedings | State: for a petty misdemeanor the court need only give limited advisements; the record and journal entry show acceptance of plea and sentencing | Court held the record shows a complete failure to inform Brown of the effect of a no-contest plea; Crim.R. 11 noncompliance was complete, so the plea was invalid and conviction vacated |
| Whether Brown actually entered a verbal no-contest plea in open court | Brown: effectively entered plea by indicating desire to resolve matter | State: court accepted plea as reflected in journal entry and proceeded to sentence | Court (and one concurrence) found transcript does not show a verbal no-contest plea; lack of an entered plea supports vacatur/remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003) (addresses scope of Crim.R. 11 advisements for petty traffic offenses)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007) (trial court must inform defendant of the effect of a no-contest plea per Crim.R. 11(B)(2); that information may be given orally or in writing)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 requirements reviewed for substantial compliance; totality of circumstances determines subjective understanding)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (prejudice test asks whether the plea would have otherwise been made)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (nonconstitutional advisements under Crim.R. 11 are subject to substantial-compliance review)