State v. McGlinch, 135 N.E.3d 406

On June 10, 2017 Officer Penny stopped Barbara McGlinch after observing her drive left of center and make an imprecise left turn crossing a stop bar; he later arrested her for OVI and she provided a urine sample testing .132 g/100 ml.
McGlinch was charged with OVI (R.C. 4511.19) and related traffic offenses; she moved to dismiss (loss of cruiser video) and to suppress (contending the stop and subsequent tests/arrest were unlawful and that she was subject to custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings).
At the suppression hearing the trial court denied most suppression claims but sustained McGlinch’s Miranda-related argument as to certain statements; it denied the motion to dismiss for spoliation.
McGlinch pled no contest to OVI (R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(e)) in October 2017 in exchange for dismissal of other counts; the court found her guilty and imposed jail, fines, community-service option, license suspension, and points.
On appeal McGlinch challenges (1) the traffic stop’s legality (reasonable suspicion for R.C. 4511.25 violation) and (2) whether the trial court complied with Traf.R. 10(D) in informing her of the effect of a no contest plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether officer had reasonable suspicion to stop McGlinch for driving left of center in violation of R.C. 4511.25(A)	Officer observed driving in the roadway center and an improper left turn crossing the stop bar; those observations provided reasonable suspicion	McGlinch: road was residential with parked cars and no lane markings; prosecution failed to disprove a statutory exception (obstruction or lawful left turn)	Stop was lawful; officer had reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop
Whether trial court complied with Traf.R. 10(D) by informing defendant of the effect of a no contest plea	State proceeded under Traf.R. 10 and read stipulated facts; court covered rights and penalties	McGlinch: court did not inform her that no contest is not an admission of guilt but an admission of the facts and that the plea cannot be used against her in subsequent proceedings	Court completely failed to inform defendant of the effect of a no contest plea; plea acceptance violated Traf.R. 10(D) and must be vacated

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) (police may briefly stop to investigate with reasonable, articulable suspicion)
State v. Retherford, 93 Ohio App.3d 586 (2d Dist.) (trial court as factfinder on suppression; appellate review accepts facts if supported)
State v. Mays, 119 Ohio St.3d 406 (Ohio 2008) (traffic stops for minor violations and reasonable-suspicion standard)
State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003) (Traf.R. 10(D) effect-of-plea requirement limited to Traf.R. 10(B) language)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (failure to inform of nonconstitutional plea effect reviewed for prejudice under substantial-compliance)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007) (court must inform defendant of the effect of a no contest plea as set in Traf.R. 10(B))
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (distinguishing complete vs partial noncompliance with Crim.R. 11 and prejudice requirement)