[Cite as State v. Partee, 2013-Ohio-908.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-120432
TRIAL NO. B-1103226
Plaintiff-Appellee, :
vs. : O P I N I O N.
SCOTT PARTEE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Vacated and Cause Remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 13, 2013
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Scott Heenan,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond L. Katz, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: this case has been removed from the accelerated calendar.
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
D E W INE , Judge.
{¶1} This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence in a
criminal case. The defendant, Scott Partee, entered a written plea of no contest but was
not afforded the plea hearing required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2). As a consequence, we vacate
the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
{¶2} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) mandates that a trial court before accepting a plea in a
felony case must personally address the defendant, and ascertain that the plea is
voluntary and that the defendant understands the effect of the plea, the nature of the
charges and the maximum penalty that may be imposed. Further, the court must
inform the defendant and ensure the defendant understands that as a result of the plea
that defendant is waiving his constitutional rights (1) to a jury trial, (2) to confront his
accusers, (3) to have compulsory process, (4) to have the state prove his guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt, and (5) to the privilege against compulsory incrimination. A trial
court must substantially comply with the nonconstitutional provisions of the rule and
must strictly comply with the constitutional provisions. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d
176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 14 and syllabus. A trial court must also
advise a defendant regarding any applicable period of postrelease control and the
sanctions for violation of the terms of postrelease control. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio
St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 32; State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d
86, 2008-Ohio-509, 881 N.E.2d 1224, paragraph two of the syllabus; R.C. 2943.032.
{¶3} In this case, Mr. Partee was barely afforded a plea hearing at all. After
being presented with an “Entry Withdrawing Plea of Not Guilty and Entering Plea of No
Contest,” the trial judge asked Mr. Partee to confirm that he had signed the document.
The court went on to explain the effect of a no-contest plea and the maximum penalties
for each offense, and to ask the prosecutor to read the facts of the indictment. After the
2
OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
prosecutor recited the facts, the trial court had a short discussion with counsel relating
to the offense that served as the predicate for the weapons-under-disability charge in the
indictment and continued the matter for sentencing. That was it. The defendant was
not asked orally to enter a plea, there was no discussion of his waiver of constitutional
rights or postrelease control, and the court at the hearing never accepted the plea or
found the defendant guilty.
{¶4} Mr. Partee raises two assignments of error relating to the deficient plea
proceeding as well as three others challenging his sentence. We need not look beyond
the plea hearing, however. The trial court’s error in failing to assure that Mr. Partee
understood his constitutional rights as part of the plea proceeding is by itself sufficient to
mandate that we vacate his conviction. Accordingly, we sustain the fifth assignment of
error relating to the court’s failure to inform Mr. Partee of his constitutional rights. We
find that the remaining assignments of error are moot. App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). We vacate
the judgment of conviction and remand for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion and law.
Judgment vacated and cause remanded.
HENDON, P.J, and HILDEBRANDT, J., concur.
Please note:
The court has recorded its own entry this date.
3