State v. Korossy
2017 Ohio 7275
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Steven N. Korossy, a Put‑In‑Bay police officer, was indicted on multiple counts for unauthorized use of the Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway and one count of falsification; he ultimately pled no contest to five amended counts of attempted unauthorized use (misdemeanors) and other counts were dismissed.
- At the plea hearing the state mistakenly referred to the plea as "guilty," the court intermittently called it "guilty," but Korossy clarified his plea was no contest; the court accepted the no contest plea and, with Korossy’s consent, found him guilty.
- The trial court sentenced Korossy to 30 days on each count to run consecutively (150 days total), suspending 75 days conditionally, and ordered forfeiture of his peace officer certificate.
- On appeal Korossy argued, inter alia, that the trial court erred by failing to elicit the statutorily required "explanation of the circumstances" under R.C. 2937.07 before finding him guilty on a no‑contest plea, that his rights under Crim.R. 11 and due process were violated, and that double jeopardy attached.
- The Sixth District agreed the court did not obtain an explanation of circumstances, Korossy did not expressly waive that requirement, and because an explanation supplies the factual basis for a no‑contest conviction, the absence of it meant the conviction lacked sufficient evidence; double jeopardy attached and Korossy was discharged.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court satisfied R.C. 2937.07 by obtaining an explanation of the circumstances before finding guilt on a no‑contest plea | State: Korossy waived the explanation requirement and consented to a finding of guilt, so no explanation was necessary | Korossy: He did not waive the R.C. 2937.07 explanation; waivers in the transcript only pertained to explanation of elements, not facts | Court: No waiver; the court failed to obtain the required explanation of circumstances, so the finding of guilt was unsupported |
| Whether a consent to a finding of guilt substitutes for the statutorily required factual explanation | State: Consent to a finding equals waiver of further explanation | Korossy: Consent to be found guilty is not the functional equivalent of a guilty plea and does not waive the factual explanation absent an explicit waiver | Court: Consent alone does not waive R.C. 2937.07; explanation still required |
| Remedy for failure to obtain explanation of circumstances: vacate and retry or discharge on double jeopardy grounds | State: Vacate convictions and reinstate original charges so state can retry | Korossy: Double jeopardy attaches when the state fails to present the factual basis; he must be discharged | Court: Failure to elicit explanation is failure to establish sufficient facts; double jeopardy attaches; Korossy discharged |
| Whether other assigned errors (sentencing, ineffective assistance, consecutive sentence) need resolution given the above error | State: Errors warrant remand or resentencing | Korossy: Primary error is jurisdictional/substantive, rendering convictions invalid | Court: Because conviction vacated and defendant discharged, remaining assignments need not be reached |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lloyd, 58 N.E.3d 520 (Ohio Ct. App. 2016) (explaining that an explanation of circumstances must recite facts supporting every element and that absence of such explanation renders a no‑contest conviction unsupported)
- State v. Schornak, 41 N.E.3d 168 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015) (stating that an explanation that merely restates statutory elements is insufficient)
- State v. Arnold, 72 N.E.3d 715 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017) (distinguishing a valid waiver where defendant affirmatively stated there was an "actual basis" for guilt)