State v. Chipman, 2018 Ohio 33

Defendant Selma Chipman (age 82) was charged with two counts of cruelty to a companion animal after her German Shepherd was found with demodectic mange and related infections; both counts were second-degree misdemeanors.
On the scheduled trial date Chipman orally pleaded no contest to one count (Count Two) in exchange for dismissal of the other; the court accepted the plea, the prosecutor recited the facts, and the court ordered a presentence investigation.
Chipman signed a written plea form in open court; the plea form contained language stating a no contest plea is not an admission of guilt and that it cannot be used in subsequent proceedings.
About 2½ months later and before sentencing, Chipman filed a presentence motion to withdraw her plea, asserting she did not understand the nature of the charges or penalties and that she had a defense.
After a hearing the trial court (a different judge) denied the motion, finding the court complied with Crim.R. 11, Chipman had competent counsel, and competent evidence supported that she understood the plea; court then sentenced Chipman to community control and financial sanctions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Chipman)	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 in taking a no contest plea to a petty misdemeanor	The plea form signed in open court and the colloquy substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(E); written notification satisfies the rule’s requirements	The court failed to fully inform her of the effect of a no contest plea and she did not understand the plea	Court: Substantial compliance satisfied Crim.R. 11 for a petty offense; written form plus colloquy adequate (Assignment 1 overruled)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Chipman’s presentence motion to withdraw her plea	The motion was a change of heart without a reasonable basis; court properly found she understood the proceedings and had competent counsel	She did not understand the charges/plea and had a defense, so withdrawal should be allowed	Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence supported that Chipman understood the plea and offered no legitimate basis to withdraw (Assignment 2 overruled)

State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 877 N.E.2d 677 (2007) (Crim.R. 11 compliance for misdemeanors and requirement that defendant be informed of plea effect)
State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12, 788 N.E.2d 635 (2003) (distinguishing Crim.R. 11 requirements by offense classification)
State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992) (presentence motions to withdraw plea should be freely allowed but are within trial court discretion; balancing factors)
State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 404 N.E.2d 144 (1980) (standard of review for plea withdrawal decisions)