2020 Ohio 4329
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Oct. 9, 2019 Denver C. Tharp was charged in Dayton Municipal Court with one count of third-degree misdemeanor littering.
- Tharp pled no contest; the court accepted the plea and sentenced him to up to 60 days jail (60 days suspended), up to one year supervised probation, 40 hours community service, and fines/costs (initially $50, later reduced to $5 after discussion).
- After sentencing Tharp expressed confusion about probation and about paperwork warning that his driver’s license could receive a warrant block for failure to pay fines; the court explained both probation/community service and the warrant-block paperwork.
- At the plea hearing the trial court orally recited the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) effect-of-no-contest-plea advisal; Tharp signed a written plea-and-waiver form containing the same language.
- On appeal Tharp argued his no-contest plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because he was not informed beforehand that his license could be subject to a warrant block and that the court could impose probation.
- The Second District affirmed, holding that for petty-offense misdemeanors Crim.R. 11(E) requires only that the court inform the defendant of the effect of the plea (Crim.R. 11(B)(2)), not every potential penalty.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court satisfied Crim.R.11 when accepting a no-contest plea to a petty misdemeanor | Court (State): Trial court complied by advising the effect of a no-contest plea under Crim.R.11(B)(2) orally and in writing | Tharp: Plea was not knowing because he was not informed of possible consequences (warrant block on license; probation) before pleading | Affirmed — advisal of effect of plea was given and satisfies Crim.R.11(E) for petty offenses |
| Whether trial courts must inform defendants of potential penalties (e.g., warrant block, probation) before accepting a no-contest plea to a petty offense | State: Not required for petty offenses; penalties are separate from the "effect" of the plea | Tharp: Must be informed of possible penalties to understand the plea’s effect | Held — potential penalties are not part of the ‘‘effect’’ of a no-contest plea; Crim.R.11(E) does not require advising these for petty misdemeanors |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 877 N.E.2d 677 (2007) (Supreme Court of Ohio explaining Crim.R.11 plea-advisal requirements and distinguishing the "effect of a plea" from advisals of potential penalties)