Maples Hts. v. MohammadMaples Hts. v. Mohammad
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: November 7, 2019
Appearances:
Consolo Law Firm Co., L.P.A., Frank Consolo, City of Maple Heights Law Director, and Horace F. Consolo, for appellee.
Rashid Mohammad, pro se.
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.:
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant Rashid Mohammad, pro se, appeals from his conviction following a no contest plea for misdemeanor building code violations under
Procedural History and Substantive Facts
{¶ 2} On October 22, 2018, the city of Maple Heights filed a complaint against Mohammad for several building code violations under
{¶ 3} On December 17, 2018, the court held a hearing on the matter. At the onset of the hearing, Mohammad indicated that he wished to plead no contest. At the prosecutor‘s request, an individual from the building department identified as Ms. King read the 25 violations into the record. Thereafter, what transpired was a somewhat perplexing hearing where multiple people, sometimes identified in the transcript as “speaker,” presented information that was oftentimes noted on the transcript as “unintelligible.” The individuals addressed previous cases as well as current violations, resulting in the trial judge expressing confusion.
{¶ 4} Nonetheless, what we have discerned from the transcript is that Mohammad was the property manager at the time of the violations, not the owner. His counsel stated that Mohammad “I guess * * * admits that there are, in fact, the
{¶ 5} At some point during the hearing, the owner of the property came forward and identified himself. He acknowledged that the violations existed and stated that he “take[s] full responsibility.” He also advised the court that (1) he had hired a contractor, who would begin making the necessary repairs on December 20, 2018; and (2) Mohammad was no longer the property manager. Mohammad then attempted to explain to the court that two of the violations were invalid, stating that
{¶ 6} The court then immediately proceeded to sentencing, without finding Mohammad guilty, and stated as follows:
Mr. Mohammad, this is what we‘re going to do: Your fine is going to be $500 [and] costs. You have until January 28, 2019, to do all the repairs. If you are not able to do it, he‘d better get it done by January 28, because somebody is going to jail. So it‘s either going to be you, sir, or him [presumably the owner of the property].
{¶ 7} Mohammad now appeals.
No Contest Plea
{¶ 8} In his sole assignment of error, Mohammad contends that the trial court “erred in granting appellee‘s demand for fixing building violation[s].” Mohammad essentially disputes the facts supporting the offenses. Specifically, he asserts that there are “made up lists” of violations that contain different dates and are “very confusing“; 17 of the 25 violations had been repaired prior to the date of the hearing; he is not the owner of the property; and the city was aware that Mohammad was no longer “manager on record” for the property at issue. Plaintiff-appellee, city of Maple Heights, contends that Mohammad‘s appeal is without merit because the appeal challenges the sufficiency of the facts of the underlying charge to which Mohammad entered a plea of no contest.
{¶ 9} Mohammad pleaded no contest to the failure to comply with numerous building and house code violations, which are first-degree misdemeanors, punishable by a maximum sentence of six months.
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} As stated in
{¶ 13} Here, defense counsel advised the court that the parties had reached a resolution and the prosecutor advised the court that Mohammad will be entering a plea. Thereafter, the following discourse transpired:
Court: A plea of no contest?
Counsel: Yes, your Honor.
Court: Okay. Mr. Mohammad, then the charge is a building code violation. It carries a penalty of up to six months in jail, up to $1,000 fine.
If you plead no contest, you‘ll be convicted. I‘ll listen to what everyone has to say. Then you‘ll be sentenced, and your case will be over today.
If you disagree with that, we‘ll set this for trial. And Mr. — well, it is set for trial.
Counsel: It is set for trial, yes, so we‘ll proceed.
Court: We‘ll proceed to trial. So do you want to plea[d] no contest, or got to trial?
Mohammad: No contest.
Court: Pardon?
Mohammad: (Unintelligible.) Court: Well, but you‘d have to agree that — are you — Mr. Mohammad, do you believe that these building code violations exist?
Mohammad: I‘m sorry?
Court: Yes, that they‘re there, that there are truly building code violations?
Mohammad: Yes. (Unintelligible.)
Court: Okay. And they haven‘t been repaired, so I‘ll accept that plea. I‘m going to ask you to sign this form that says that, and then I‘m going to listen to everybody here.
{¶ 14} The record contains a “Change of Plea” form and a “Statement of Rights.” The Change of Plea form, which includes a statement acknowledging that the accused understands the constitutional rights he is waiving, as explained by the court, and knowingly enters a plea, is signed by Mohammad and dated December 17, 2018, the date of the hearing. The Statement of Rights, however, which contains its own signature line under the acknowledgment that the accused has read and understands his rights and that the same were explained to him in open court, bears no signature or date; rather, it is completely blank. This document contains the pertinent
{¶ 15} We cannot presume that Mohammad saw, much less read, the “Statement of Rights” or the
{¶ 16} Based on the foregoing record, we cannot find the trial court advised Mohammad of the effect of his no contest plea under
{¶ 17} Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is ordered that appellant recover of said appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR