Defendant-appellant, Nicodemus Joseph, was charged with onе count of menacing. R.C. 2903.22. At his arraignment on June 12, 1987, Joseph was not represented by counsel, but was informed by the court that the charge was a fоurth degree misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $250 or up to thirty days in jail, or both. Joseph pleaded not guilty.
Thereafter, Joseph rеtained an attorney and appeared again before thе trial court on July 31, 1987, when he changed his plea to no contest. His counsel stipulated to his guilt. The trial court accepted the pleа, found Joseph guilty, and ordered a pre-sentence investigation. On Sеptember 14, 1987, Joseph was ordered to pay $250, plus *213 court costs, аnd sentenced to five days in the Wayne County Jail; the sentence was stayed pending this appeal.
Assignment of Error I
“Appellant’s plea of guilty and his waiver of his rights was not done in a knowing, intelligent and voluntary manner and is thereforе invalid.”
Crim. R. 11(E) provides in relevant part:
“In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such plea without first informing the defendant of the еffect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and not guilty.”
This rule requires that the record affirmatively demonstrate that a plea of no contest was entered voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly.
Garfield Heights
v.
Brewer
(1984),
“The Court: Mr. Joseph, do you understand that if you change your plеa from Not Guilty to Guilty on this charge you’ll be giving up your right to have a trial?
“Mr. Joseph: Yes sir.
“The Court: Is that what you wish to do?
“Mr. Joseph: Yes sir.
“The Cоurt: Your social security number, please, Mr. Joseph?
“Mr. Joseph: Five one five, five four, eight two four four.
“The Court: Would you рlease review this with your attorney? I’ll accept the change оf plea. A finding of guilty will be entered. * * *”
The trial judge had handed the defendant а document labeled “waiver of rights” which was a list of the rights waived by his pleа of no contest. The record shows that Joseph signed this document.
These actions do not constitute the “meaningful dialogue” that is required; written statements are insufficient. Brewer, op. cit. It is troubling to this court that the trial court acсepted Joseph’s plea while contemporaneously hаnding him a written waiver to “review” with his attorney. There is also no indication that the trial court thereafter even attempted to satisfy itself that Joseph understood his rights. We caution the trial court to conform any future use of these written waivers to the due process standards set forth аbove.
Accordingly, appellant’s first assignment of error is sustained.
Assignment of Error II
“Appellant’s plea of guilty was induced by the good faith belief that a binding plea bargain had been made for a lesser sentence and said рlea is therefore invalid.”
The record contains no evidence of any sort of plea bargain referred to in this assignment of error. Assuming thеre was such evidence, the argument is rendered moot by our disposition of the first assignment of error.
Accordingly, with regard to the first assignment of error, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, appellant’s plea is vаcated, and the case is remanded to allow the appellant to *214 plead anew. State v. Ferrell (Aug. 7, 1985), Medina App. No. 1400, unreported.