State v. ArnoldState v. Arnold
{¶1} This timely appeal comes for consideration upon the record in the trial court, and the parties’ briefs. Appellant, Leland Arnold, appeals the decision of the County Court, Monroe County, Ohio that found him guilty of one count of aggravated menacing, and one count of reckless operation, and sentenced him accordingly. On appeal, Arnold argues that the trial court erred by failing to properly comply with
{¶2} Upon review, Arnold‘s arguments are meritless. The trial court was not required to follow
Facts
{¶3} Arnold was charged by complaint with two counts of aggravating menacing, first-degree misdemeanors pursuаnt to
{¶4} On July 9, 2008, Arnold‘s arraignment was held. Several other criminal defendants wеre arraigned at the same time. During the arraignment, the trial court informed Arnold and the other defendants of their rights to read the complaint; be informed of the nature of the charges; obtain a lawyer and a reasonable continuance to obtain a lawyer; have a lawyer assigned without cost; make no statement; have a jury trial; and have the court fix a reasonable bail. The cоurt also advised them about the court‘s obligation to notify the Bureau of Motor Vehicles as to the traffic offense convictions. Importantly, the court also informed Arnold, together with the other
{¶5} Arnold initially pleaded not guilty to the charges. However, on August 27, 2008 Arnold appeared for a change of plea hearing. The parties advised the court they had reached a plea agreement. The State explained that pursuant to this agreement, Arnold agreed to plead no contest to one count of aggravated menacing, and in exchange the State agreed to reduce the second aggravated menacing charge to a
{¶6} The trial court then held a brief colloquy with Arnold, explaining to him some of the rights he would give up by virtue of his plea. Specifically, the trial court told Arnold that by pleading no contest he would give up his rights to а jury trial, to have the State prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, to cross-examine witnesses at trial, to subpoena witnesses, and his right against self-incrimination. Arnold indicated his understanding. Arnold then enterеd a plea of no contest to both count one, aggravated menacing, and amended count two, reckless operation. Arnold indicated he waived presentation of evidence and reserved no issues for appeal. The trial court accepted Arnold‘s plea as knowing and voluntary. The court then imposed the jointly recommended sentence.
Crim.R. 11
{¶7} In his first of two assignments оf error, Arnold argues:
{¶8} “The Appellant was not properly informed of his rights at the plea hearing so as to meet the requirements of Criminal Rule 11.”
{¶9} As an initial matter, we note that
{¶10} To the extent Arnold argues that the trial court‘s acceptance of his no contest plea to the aggravated menacing charge did not comply with
{¶11} Instead,
{¶12} Arnold pleaded no contest to aggravated menacing, which is a first degree misdemeanor that subjected him to a maximum of 180 days in jail.
{¶13} “With reference to the offense or offenses to which the plea is entered:
{¶14} “(1) The plea of guilty is a complete admission of the defendant‘s guilt.
{¶15} “(2) The plea of no cоntest is not an admission of defendant‘s guilt, but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information, or complaint, and the plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.
{¶16} “(3) When a plea of guilty or no contest is accepted pursuant to this rule, the court, except as provided in divisions (C)(3) and (4) of this rule, shall proceed with
sentencing under Crim. R. 32.”
{¶17} The trial court informed Arnold of the effect of a no contest plea during his arraignment. Specifically, the trial court stated:
{¶18} “A plea of no contest is not an admission of guilt, but it is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint. A plea of no contest shall not be used against you in any later civil or criminal proceeding, and your case would be heard today.”
{¶19} To the extent Arnold argues that thе trial court should have also explained the effect of the no contest plea during the plea hearing, his argument is meritless. For one, Arnold fails to show how he was prejudiced by the fact that this explanation wаs not repeated during the plea hearing. Further, in State v. Perkins, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-924, 2008-Ohio-5060, the Tenth District held that the trial court complied with
{¶20} ”
{¶21} We agree with the reasoning set forth in Perkins and Jones and accordingly hold that a trial court complies with
{¶22} In his second assignment of error, Arnold argues:
{¶23} “The Trial Court failed to comply with the provisions of Traffic Rule 10(D) when it accepted the Appellant‘s no contest plea to the charge of reckless operation.”
{¶24} This court has held that a plea to a
{¶25}
{¶26} “In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses, except those processed in a traffic violations bureau, the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty.”
{¶27} The effect of a no contest plea is defined in
{¶28} “The plеa of no contest is not an admission of defendant‘s guilt, but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and such plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.”
{¶29} The trial court explained the effect of a no contest plea during Arnold‘s arraignment. Accordingly, the trial court complied with the provisions of
{¶30} Arnold makes an additional argument that the trial court was required to issue a citation for the reckless operatiоn charge, presumably because the original complaint did not charge him with reckless operation. This argument is meritless. As part of his plea deal with the State, Arnold agreed to plead no сontest to an amended charge of reckless operation. In addition, Arnold indicated he waived presentation of evidence to this charge and that he reserved no issues for apрeal.
{¶31} In sum, Arnold‘s arguments are meritless. The trial court was not required to follow
Donofrio, J., concurs.
Waite, J., concurs.