State v. Lloyd
58 N.E.3d 520
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Karrie L. Lloyd was charged with two OVI counts (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a) & (d)) and a marked-lanes violation (R.C. 4511.33). Case filed July 2014; trial ultimately set for January 13, 2015.
- The trial court permitted Lloyd to file a late motion to suppress; she filed it January 5, 2015 and the hearing was set for the trial date.
- On January 13 the court refused to hear the suppression motion as untimely and denied it without a hearing because granting a hearing would make the case ‘‘overage.’’
- In light of that ruling Lloyd entered a no-contest plea, preserving appeal rights; the court then found her guilty without addressing her personally under Crim.R. 11 or asking for an explanation of the circumstances as required by R.C. 2937.07.
- Lloyd appealed, assigning error for (1) refusal to hear the suppression motion; (2) insufficient evidence / failure to obtain explanation of circumstances before finding guilt; and (3) failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 when accepting the plea.
- The appellate court reversed: it discharged Lloyd on the two OVI counts (finding R.C. 2937.07 violated and double jeopardy barred retrial) and vacated the marked-lanes plea for a new plea hearing (Crim.R.11(E) noncompliance).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lloyd's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by refusing to hear a late suppression motion | Court permissibly denied hearing due to untimeliness and concern case would become overage | Court granted leave to file; refusal to hear prioritized administrative rules over Lloyd’s rights | Not reached on appeal (court decided other issues dispositive) |
| Whether court’s acceptance of a no-contest plea without calling for an explanation of circumstances (R.C. 2937.07) was harmless | If the traffic citation or available records had been read, those facts would support conviction; any failure was harmless | Failure to elicit explanation means insufficient evidence to support conviction; preserves sufficiency challenge; reversal and discharge required | Court held failure to obtain explanation violated R.C. 2937.07; such error results in insufficient evidence and double jeopardy bars retrial — Lloyd discharged as to OVI counts |
| Whether plea court’s failure to address defendant personally under Crim.R. 11(D)/(E) requires vacation of plea | No direct defense argument on this point beyond asking for harmless-error treatment | Crim.R. 11(D)/(E) requires the court to inform defendant and determine voluntariness; noncompliance presumptively prejudicial | Court found absolute noncompliance with Crim.R. 11; remanded for new plea hearing on the marked-lanes (minor) offense |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148 (Ohio 1984) (trial court must make an explanation of circumstances on a no-contest plea; absence requires vacatur)
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (distinguishes reversal for trial error from reversal for insufficiency; governs double jeopardy analysis)
- State v. Kareski, 137 Ohio St.3d 92 (Ohio 2013) (addresses double jeopardy principles in Ohio post-reversal context)