2019 Ohio 2753
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Richard Lask was indicted for second-degree felony possession of marihuana based on a large quantity; he initially moved to suppress evidence and the trial court granted in part and denied in part that motion.
- Lask ultimately pleaded guilty to an amended second-degree count that carried a mandatory minimum five-year prison term; the parties jointly recommended the minimum sentence.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor and defense both referenced preserving an appeal of the suppression ruling; the trial court repeatedly told Lask that pleading guilty would not foreclose his right to appeal the suppression ruling.
- The record does not contain a transcription of an alleged off-the-record discussion in which the court purportedly refused to accept a no-contest plea; Lask did not supply an App.R. 9(C)/(D) statement to fill gaps in the record.
- Lask appealed, arguing (1) the court erred by refusing a no-contest plea that would have preserved suppression review, (2) the court and prosecutor misinformed him that a guilty plea preserved his right to appeal the suppression ruling, and (3) his guilty plea was therefore not knowingly and intelligently entered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by refusing to accept a no-contest plea | State: Record does not show the court refused; no error shown | Lask: Court rejected a no-contest plea off the record, which would have preserved appeal rights | No reversible error because appellant did not supply missing transcript or App.R.9 statement; presumption in favor of trial court |
| Whether a guilty plea preserved the right to appeal denial of the motion to suppress | State: Guilty plea generally waives prior nonjurisdictional claims; Beasley distinguishing fact pattern | Lask: Court and prosecutor assured him a guilty plea would preserve suppression appeal; relied on that assurance | Court held the trial court incorrectly assured Lask that a guilty plea preserved the right to appeal; that assurance rendered the plea invalid |
| Whether Lask’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary given the mistaken advice about appeal rights | State: Guilty plea waiver rules apply; plea waives prior nonjurisdictional claims if knowing | Lask: Plea was premised on incorrect info about appellate rights and thus not knowing/intelligent | Plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because it was premised on incorrect appellate-rights advice; reversal and remand to allow withdrawal of plea |
| Whether appellate review of suppression ruling should proceed despite plea | State: Beasley does not require immediate appellate review while guilty plea stands | Lask: Relied on Beasley to insist appeal should be heard now | Court distinguished Beasley and remanded for withdrawal and repleading rather than allowing appeal while plea remains |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Beasley, 97 N.E.3d 474 (Ohio 2018) (no-contest plea refusal policy; preserved error when court acknowledged it would summarily reject no-contest plea)
- State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (guilty/no-contest plea not knowing when premised on mistaken belief about appellate rights)
- State v. Fitzpatrick, 810 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 2004) (valid guilty plea waives prior nonjurisdictional constitutional claims)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (U.S. 1975) (guilty plea as admission of factual guilt and its waiver effects)
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1973) (guilty plea bars subsequent claims of constitutional deprivation occurring prior to the plea)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 400 N.E.2d 384 (Ohio 1980) (appellant bears burden to provide complete record for appellate review)