State v. Lazazzera
2013 Ohio 2547
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Lazazzera was stopped for speeding in Youngstown on May 26, 2012; Trooper Murphy detected glassy eyes, odor of alcohol, and admitted wine consumption; Intoxilyzer 8000 breath test yielded a .082; charges included speeding, certain OVI-related counts; plea agreement led to a no contest plea to OVI (A)(1)(a) with two charges dismissed and charge amended to first offense; trial court sentenced to 30 days in jail, $500 fine, and license suspension for three years; Lazazzera appealed arguing Traf.R. 10(D) advisement and disproportional sentence; appeal stayed pending judgment.
- The traffic case involved a petty offense for purposes of Traf.R. 10(D) because the maximum sentence was six months, making Traf.R. 10(D) applicable; the plea was a no contest; the court accepted the plea and sentenced as stated.
- The key issue on appeal was whether the trial court’s advisement complied with Traf.R. 10(D) regarding the effect of the no contest plea; the court found partial compliance, not complete, but concluded no prejudicial error.
- The appellate court also addressed whether the 30-day sentence was disproportionate to similarly situated offenders, ultimately concluding the issue was waived but reviewed under plain error, and held the sentence was not disproportionate.
- The court determined the no contest advisement did not fully comply with Traf.R. 10(B)(2) and (D) but found no prejudice and affirmed the plea and sentence.
- Concluding, all assignments of error were found meritless and the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court substantially comply with Traf.R. 10(D) on the no contest plea? | Lazazzera argues noncompliance invalidates the plea. | State contends partial compliance suffices if prejudice is not shown. | Partial compliance; no prejudice shown; plea valid. |
| Was there a prejudice from the incomplete advisement regarding the plea’s effect? | Lazazzera asserts potential prejudice from incomplete advisement. | No prejudice shown given discussion with attorney and other advisement. | No prejudice; plea stands. |
| Is Lazazzera’s 30-day sentence disproportionate to similarly situated offenders? | Appellant contends disproportionality based on other cases. | State argues insufficient comparable data; court may consider priors and case specifics. | Waived but denied on plain error; sentence not disproportionate. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003-Ohio-2419) (limits required advisement to effect of the plea in misdemeanor traffic cases; no constitutional rights disclosure required)
- State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007-Ohio-6093) (Traf.R. 10(B)(2) governs the effect of no contest pleas; identical Crim.R. 11(B)(2) standard)
- State v. Dosch, 2009-Ohio-6534 (7th Dist.) (three points of information must be conveyed about no contest plea)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial compliance standard allows slight deviations if overall understanding exists)
- State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 (79 Ohio St.3d 239) (complete versus partial compliance analysis; prejudice must be shown if partial)
- State v. Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509 (117 Ohio St.3d 86) (example of complete failure where no compliance requires vacatur)
- State v. Hyde, 2012-Ohio-3616 (6th Dist.) (misdemeanor sentencing factors; structural approach akin to felony analysis)
- State v. Parker, 2011-Ohio-1418 (2d Dist.) (disproportionality requires some evidentiary start; data preservation)