[Cite as Toledo v. Whitfield, 2018-Ohio-667.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY
State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. L-17-1083
Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-17-01144
v.
Mitchell Whitfield DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Appellant Decided: February 23, 2018
*****
David Toska, City of Toledo Chief Prosecutor, and
Henry Schaefer, Assistant Prosecutor, for appellee.
Stephen D. Long, for appellant.
*****
SINGER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Mitchell Whitfield, appeals from the March 15, 2017 judgment of
the Toledo Municipal Court convicting him of violating R.C. 2923.02, attempt to commit
an offense, following acceptance of his no contest plea, and sentencing him. Appellant
also appeals from the court’s April 13, 2017 judgment denying his motion to withdraw
his plea of no contest. For the reasons which follow, we reverse.
{¶ 2} A complaint was filed against appellant charging him with two counts of
assault, in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). On the day set for appellant’s trial, after his
motion for a continuance was denied, a plea agreement was presented. The prosecution
and defense agreed to appellant entering pleas of no contest to reduced charges of
attempted assault, both second degree misdemeanors. Defense counsel stated appellant
would “consent to a finding, waive reading and call for explanation of circumstances.”
Thereafter, the trial court found appellant guilty and he was immediately sentenced and
taken into custody.
{¶ 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 asserted 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).
2.
{¶ 5} On appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court did not inform appellant,
orally or in writing, of any of the effects of his pleas of no contest to the amended
charges. Because the trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11(E), appellant argues his
pleas were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made and are, therefore, void.
{¶ 6} A no contest plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily to
be 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). Crim.R. 11 was adopted to provide trial courts with
procedures to follow when accepting pleas to ensure there is a record of the plea and that
the plea is enforceable. State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953
N.E.2d 826, ¶ 9, citing State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d
621, ¶ 7.
{¶ 7} The rule sets forth the “trial court’s obligations in accepting 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. Civ.R. 11(E) governs the trial court’s
obligations regarding misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses and provides in
pertinent part that “the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall
not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea * * *.”
{¶ 8} The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, whether the rights involved
are constitutional or nonconstitutional, literal compliance with Crim.R. 11(C), (D), and (E)
3.
is the proper means to ensure that a defendant’s guilty or no contest plea is knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily made. State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 2004-Ohio-4415,
814 N.E.2d 51, ¶ 19, fn. 2. When literal compliance has not occurred, the reviewing court
must determine if the trial court fulfilled the purposes of the rule. State v. Clark, 119 Ohio
St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 30. If the court did not literally comply
with the rule, the appellate court must determine the significance of the failure and the
remedy. Id.; Veney at ¶ 14.
{¶ 9} There are different levels of acceptable compliance 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 Crim.R. 11 in any regard, whether constitutional
or non-constitutional rights are involved, there is no need to demonstrate prejudice because
it can be presumed that a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea could not have been
made and the plea must be vacated. Clark; Veney at ¶ 32.
{¶ 10} In the case before us, there was no compliance with Crim.R. 11(E) because
the trial court never addressed the defendant and informed him of the effect of the plea he
was entering. Therefore, we find appellant’s sole assignment of error well-taken.
{¶ 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 Municipal
4.
Court is reversed, appellant’s plea is vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court
for further proceedings. Appellee is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to
App.R. 24.
Judgment reversed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J. _______________________________
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, J.
_______________________________
Thomas J. Osowik, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.
_______________________________
JUDGE
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/.
5.