Case Information
*1
[Cite as
State v. Wynn
,
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NOS. C-150051
C-150052 Plаintiff-Appellee, : TRIAL NOS. 14TRD-45700A
14TRD-45700B vs. :
O P I N I O N.
DIANE WYNN, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Municipal Court Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed in C-150052; Appeal Dismissed in
C-150051
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 10, 2015
Paula Boggs Muething, City Solicitor , Heidi S. Rosales, Interim City Prosecutor , and Ashley Brucato, Assistant City Prosecutor , for Plaintiff-Appellee, Raymond T. Faller , Hamilton County Public Defender , and David Hoffmann, Assistant Public Defender , for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
*2 S TAUTBERG , Judge.
Defendant-appellant Diane Wynn appeals from the trial court’s
judgments against her arising out of a traffic accident that occurred on July 6, 2014. Wynn was charged with one count of opеrating a vehicle without reasonable control, in violation of R.C. 4511.202, and one count of failing to stop after an accident, in violation of R.C. 4549.02. On both counts, Wynn pleaded no contest. The trial court accepted her pleas and found her guilty. For the violation of operating a vehicle without reasonable control, the trial court assessed court costs, but did not impose a sentence on Wynn. She appealed that judgment in the appeal numbered C-150051. For the violation of failing to stop after an accident, the trial сourt imposed a sentence of 180 days in jail and a three-year license suspension. She appeals that judgment in the appeal numbered C-150052. Wynn asserts two assignments of error in the consolidated appeals. In her first assignment of error, Wynn claims that the trial court
errеd in failing to set aside her no-contest pleas. In Wynn’s second assignment of error, Wynn claims the trial court failed to announce the sentence in open court for each charge of which Wynn was found guilty. We will address these assignments in reverse order. The second assignment of error concerns only the imposition of
court costs on the failure-to-control charge. The court costs were included оn the
trial court’s judge’s sheets, but were not announced in open court. The trial court did
not impose any sentence or fine. Because court costs are not fines and are not
criminal punishment, there was no conviction for the R.C. 4511.202 violation, and,
therefore, no finаl appealable order.
See State v. Bennett
, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-
*3
140507 and C-140508,
trial court should not have аccepted her no-contest pleas, because she expressed her innocence of the charges during the hearing. Because we have dismissed the appealed numbered C-150051, we will only address Wynn’s no-contest plea for the failing-to-stop-after-an-аccident violation in the appeal numbered C-150052. The record demonstrates that at the hearing, the trial court explained the significance of a no contest plea—that Wynn was admitting the facts alleged on the citation as true, but was not admitting guilt—which Wynn acknowledged that she understood. The trial court further informed Wynn that her plea could not be used against her in later proceedings and listed the pоssible penalties that could be imposed if she was found guilty of the charge. Again, Wynn expressed that she understood. The trial court subsequently аccepted Wynn’s plea of no contest. The trial court then requested the facts for the record. The
prosecution stated that Wynn had struck two parked cars when she failed to control her vehicle, and she had then left the scene without providing her information to the owners of the vehicles. The trial court provided defense counsel the opportunity to speak in regard to the facts, to which defense counsel responded “comments will be in mitigation.” With no further comments from the prosecution or the defense, the triаl court found Wynn guilty.
3
*4 {¶7} During mitigation, the trial court inquired whether alcohol was a factor in Wynn’s decision to leave the scene. In response tо the trial court’s question, Wynn claimed, for the first time to the court, that she was not the driver. A lengthy exchange between Wynn and the trial court follоwed, and included statements from witnesses who were present in court. Subsequent to the exchange, the trial court imposed a sentenсe for the failure-to-stop charge. Wynn argues that the trial court did not inquire into her reasons for
entering into a plea of no cоntest in light of her denials, thus failing to follow the two-
part test set forth in
North Carolina v. Alford
,
first-degree misdemeanor. Crim.R. 11(B) states, “Thе 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 indictment, information, or cоmplaint.” An
Alford
plea, in contrast, is a guilty
plea where the defendant maintains actual innocence of the charges.
See State v.
Griggs
, 103 Ohio St.3d 85,
plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(E), which states that the trial court shall not аccept a
plea without first informing the defendant of the effect of a no-contest plea.
See
*5
State v. Jones
,
pursuant to Crim.R. 11, cоurts are not required to inquire into a defendant’s
reasoning for pleading no contest despite later assertions of innocence.
See State v.
Reeves,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100560,
Judgment accordingly. *6 D C UNNINGHAM , P.J. , and E W INE , J. , concur. Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.