State v. WatkinsState v. Watkins
Factual Background
{¶ 1} On May 19, 2000, appellant, Scott V. Watkins, was arrested for violating
{¶ 2} On February 5, 2001, at a hearing in Fairborn Municipal Court, appellant’s counsel entered a no contest plea on his behalf. The trial judge advised appellant as follows:
{¶ 3} “[N]o contest means you’re not admitting you are guilty, but you are also not contesting the facts in the Complaint and Affidavit. Based on those facts, the Court could and probably would find you guilty. Do [you] understand that?”
{¶ 4} Appellant indicated that he understood. The judge then asked defense counsel whether he wanted the prosecutor to read into the record the facts underlying the charge. Counsel responded, “That is not necessary, your Honor. We would agree that sufficient facts would exist upon which the Court can make a finding of guilty.”
{¶ 5} The court accepted appellant’s no contest plea and found him guilty of DUI. The court sentenced appellant as a second offender to 60 days’ incarceration, with 50 days suspended.
{¶ 6} Appellant appealed, arguing that before accepting his plea, the court should have engaged him in a colloquy that complied with
{¶ 7} The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the trial court on November 16, 2001. The court noted that the “case is governed by Traf.R. 10(D), rather than
{¶ 8} On March 6, 2002, this court agreed that a conflict exists among appellate districts and ordered the parties to brief the following issue:
{¶ 9} “Where a defendant charged with a petty offense changes his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty or no contest, does the trial court comply with Traf.R. 10(D) and
Law and Analysis
{¶ 10}
{¶ 11} Traf.R. 10 addresses pleas and a defendant’s rights when pleading. Traf.R. 10(D) addresses misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses. A “petty offense” is defined in Traf.R. 2 as “an offense for which the penalty prescribed by law includes confinement for six months or less.” It is undisputed that appellant’s offense was a petty offense. Traf.R. 10(D) reads:
{¶ 12} “In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses, except those processed in a traffic violations bureau, the court may refuse to accept a plea of
{¶ 13} The effect of a no contest plea is defined in Traf.R. 10(B)(2):
{¶ 14} “The plea 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.”
{¶ 15} The issue is whether a trial judge must inform a defendant of anything more than the Traf.R. 10(B) description of the effect of a guilty or no contest plea to meet the Traf.R. 10(D) requirement of “informing the defendant of the effect of the plea.” Several appellate districts hold that more is necessary. The leading case requiring more is Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983),
{¶ 16} “The court, when informing a defendant of the effect of a plea of guilty, no contest or not guilty, pursuant to
{¶ 17} In Chiaverini, the court of appeals noted that the trial court’s statement to defendant regarding his no contest plea was as follows: “Let me explain. If you enter a no contest plea today, I will make a finding of guilty * * Thus, under
{¶ 18} Essentially, Chiaverini requires a judge in a case with a defendant who falls under
{¶ 20} “* * *
{¶ 21} “(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following:
{¶22} “(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing.
{¶ 23} “(b) Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment and sentence.
{¶24} “(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.”
{¶ 25} A judge’s duty to a defendant before accepting his guilty or no contest plea is graduated according to the seriousness of the crime with which the defendant is charged.
{¶ 26} In all cases, the judge must inform the defendant of the effect of his plea. In felony cases and misdemeanor cases involving serious offenses, a judge must also “addresfs] the defendant personally” and “determin[e] that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily.”
{¶ 27} The same requirements placed upon a judge by
{¶ 28} In felony cases, the Ohio and United States Constitutions require that a defendant entering a guilty plea be “informed in a reasonable manner at the time of entering his guilty plea of his rights to a trial by jury and to confront his accusers, and his privilege against self-incrimination, and his right of compulsory process for obtaining witnesses on his behalf.” State v. Ballard (1981),
Judgment affirmed.