Toledo v. WhitfieldToledo v. Whitfield
Stephen D. Long, for appellant.
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mitchell Whitfield, appeals from the March 15, 2017 judgment of the Toledo Municipаl Court convicting him of violating
{¶ 2} A complaint was filed against appellant charging him with two counts of assault, in violation of
{¶ 3} On March 31, 2017, appellant, pro se, sought to withdraw his plea asserting his innocence and that he was pressured into entering a plea. A hearing on the “motion” was held April 13, 2017, and the trial court explained to appellant the potential sentence he faced based on the charges. Appellant аsserted his innocence, that he only spoke with the public defender for a few minutes, and that he never agreed to enter a plea. The trial court denied the motion because no manifest injustice was found.
{¶ 4} On appeal, appellant asserts the following single assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO INFORM APPELLANT OF THE EFFECT OF HIS PLEAS IN COMPLIANCE WITH
CRIM.R. 11(E) .
{¶ 6} A no contest plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily to bе valid under both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).
{¶ 7} The rule sets forth the “trial court‘s obligations in accеpting a plea depend upon the level of offense to which the defendant is pleading.” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 6, citing State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12, 2003-Ohio-2419, 788 N.E.2d 635, ¶ 25.
{¶ 8} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, whether the rights involved are constitutional or nonconstitutional, literal compliance with
{¶ 9} There are different levels of acceptable cоmpliance dependent upon whether the rights involved are constitutional or unconstitutional. Clark at ¶ 31; Veney. The “right to be informed that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is nonconstitutional and therefore is subject to review under a standard of substantial compliance.” See Griggs at ¶ 12, citing State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 107, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). However, if a trial court completely fails to comply with
{¶ 10} In the case before us, there was no compliance with
{¶ 11} Having found that the trial court did commit error prejudicial to appellant and that substantial justice has not been done, the judgment of the Toledo Muniсipal
Judgment reversed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant tо App.R. 27. See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
Arlene Singer, J.
Thomas J. Osowik, J.
CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.