State v. Ramey, 2014 Ohio 2345

Defendant Howard Ramey charged with first-degree misdemeanor domestic violence for repeatedly kicking, choking, and punching his adult daughter and pushing her into a wall while she held a six-month-old child.
Ramey pleaded no contest pursuant to a Crim.R. 11 plea agreement; the Youngstown Municipal Court sentenced him to 170 days in jail and a $500 fine.
Appointed appellate counsel filed a no-merit (Anders/Toney) brief requesting leave to withdraw, identifying two potential issues: Crim.R. 11 plea advisement adequacy and abuse-of-discretion in sentencing.
Ramey received notice and an opportunity to file his own brief but did not do so.
The appellate court independently reviewed the record, counsel’s no-merit brief, and found no non-frivolous issues; conviction and sentence were affirmed and counsel permitted to withdraw.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ramey)	Held
Whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 for a no-contest plea to a petty misdemeanor	The court’s colloquy adequately informed Ramey of the effect of the plea and constitutional rights waived; any deviation was harmless	The court failed to fully advise under Crim.R. 11(B)(2): did not state that no-contest is not an admission of guilt and that it cannot be used in subsequent proceedings	Partial compliance found; deficiency did not prejudice Ramey, so plea stands
Whether the sentence (170 days, $500 fine) was an abuse of discretion	Sentence was appropriate given the seriousness, victim impact, and statutory factors; trial court considered evidence and mitigation	Sentence was excessive/abusive	No abuse of discretion; factors supported the sentence; issue also effectively moot because sentence was served

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure for counsel seeking to withdraw on appeal when no non-frivolous issues exist)
State v. Toney, 23 Ohio App.2d 203 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970) (local district procedure for no-merit briefs and counsel withdrawal)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R. 11(E) requires informing defendant of effect of the specific plea in petty-misdemeanor cases)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2004) (Crim.R. 11 guilty-plea advisements judged by substantial compliance standard)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (plea valid if defendant subjectively understands implications and rights waived)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes partial vs. complete Crim.R. 11 noncompliance and prejudice test)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (Ohio 2008) (example of complete Crim.R. 11 failure requiring vacatur of plea)
State ex rel. Stern v. Mascio, 75 Ohio St.3d 422 (Ohio 1996) (describing the essence of a no-contest plea)