2022 Ohio 631
Ohio Ct. App.2022Background
- Defendant Deandre L. Clay was originally charged with fourth-degree felony domestic violence; charge was dismissed and re-filed as a first-degree misdemeanor (petty offense).
- On April 28, 2021, Clay entered a plea of no contest; the court accepted the plea and scheduled sentencing.
- At sentencing on June 23, 2021, the court imposed 180 days in jail and court costs; Clay stated he had not been informed he would be jailed and asked for a continuance, which was denied; he was remanded.
- Clay appealed, arguing his no contest plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to inform him of the effect of a no contest plea as required by Crim.R. 11(E) and Crim.R. 11(B)(2).
- The plea colloquy did not include the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) advisement and the written plea form also omitted the required language explaining the three points of a no contest plea.
- The appellate court held that the trial court’s complete failure to advise Clay of the effect of a no contest plea violated Crim.R. 11(E), vacated the plea without a prejudice analysis, reversed the conviction, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clay’s no contest plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntary where the trial court failed to advise him of the effect of a no contest plea under Crim.R. 11(E) and Crim.R. 11(B)(2). | State: Failure to recite Crim.R.11(B)(2) language does not require automatic reversal; reversal requires a showing of prejudice. | Clay: Trial court completely failed to inform him of the effect of a no contest plea (including the three Crim.R.11(B)(2) points), so his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary. | The court held the trial court completely failed to comply with Crim.R.11(E)/11(B)(2); such a complete failure requires vacatur of the plea without a prejudice analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (describing Crim.R. 11 procedures and distinctions among petty misdemeanors, serious misdemeanors, and felonies).
- State v. Jones, 877 N.E.2d 677 (Ohio 2007) (holding that for petty-offense misdemeanors the trial court must inform the defendant of the effect of the plea using Crim.R.11(B) language).
- City of Brecksville v. Grabowski, 98 N.E.3d 919 (Ohio) (holding that a trial court’s complete failure to recite Crim.R.11(B)(2) advisement for a no contest plea to a petty misdemeanor requires vacatur without a prejudice inquiry).