2023 Ohio 1096
Ohio Ct. App.2023Background
- Elizabeth Scanes was indicted for fifth-degree felony interference with custody under R.C. 2919.23 for allegedly taking her daughter to Florida and failing to return her to the child’s father.
- Appellant had participated in juvenile-court custody proceedings; a March 2, 2022 consent judgment awarded legal custody to the father effective January 6, 2021 and limited appellant to supervised Ohio visitation and prohibited removing the child from Ohio.
- Appellant attached to her Crim.R. 12(C) motion an excerpt of an August 11, 2020 civil protection order (CPO) and juvenile-court orders, arguing the CPO precluded the juvenile court’s custody determination and therefore made the criminal charge a “legal impossibility.”
- The trial court denied the motion to dismiss, treating it as a challenge to the sufficiency of the indictment, and Scanes subsequently entered a no-contest plea after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy.
- Sentenced to two years community control, Scanes appealed asserting (1) her plea was not knowing/voluntary and (2) the trial court erred in denying her motion to dismiss.
- The Sixth District affirmed: the CPO did not render the indictment void or legally impossible (the juvenile consent judgment terminated any CPO effect as to custody), and the plea satisfied Crim.R. 11 requirements; collateral civil consequences (custody effects) do not render a plea involuntary.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Scanes' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the indictment must be dismissed because a prior CPO/full faith & credit or jurisdictional-priority rule made prosecution a "legal impossibility" | The indictment adequately alleged an offense; the motion attacked facts and required evidence beyond the indictment’s face | The prior CPO barred the juvenile court from awarding custody to the father, so the criminal complaint based on that custody was invalid | Denial affirmed: CPO excerpt lacked identifying information; juvenile consent judgment terminated any CPO effect as to custody; the legal-impossibility claim fails and motion cannot be resolved on indictment face |
| Whether Scanes’ no-contest plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily under Crim.R. 11 | The court complied with Crim.R. 11; appellant understood the plea and its direct consequences | Trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),(b) and did not advise of collateral civil consequences (custody impact) | Affirmed: colloquy addressed direct constitutional rights and consequences; collateral civil consequences need not be explained; appellant failed to show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (sets post-Dangler framework for reviewing Crim.R. 11 plea colloquies)
- State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (U.S. 1970) (plea requires knowledge of relevant circumstances and likely consequences)
- State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (test for whether plea would have otherwise been made)
- State v. Palmer, 964 N.E.2d 406 (Ohio 2012) (Crim.R. 12 permits pretrial resolution of issues capable of determination without trial)
- Tabler v. Myers, 880 N.E.2d 103 (Ohio App. 2007) (CPO is temporary and is not treated as a custody determination)
- State v. Owens, 91 N.E.3d 103 (Ohio App. 2017) (Crim.R. 12(C) motion review is de novo)