Cleveland v. Adams

[Cite as Cleveland v. Adams, 2012-Ohio-1063.]
Court of Appeals of Ohio
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
No. 97523
CITY OF CLEVELAND
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
vs.
CLARENCE ADAMS
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
JUDGMENT:
REVERSED AND REMANDED
Criminal Appeal from the
Cleveland Municipal Court
Case No. 2011 CRB 032040
BEFORE: Jones, P.J., Cooney, J., and S. Gallagher, J.
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 15, 2012
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
Paul Mancino, Jr.
75 Public Square
Suite 1016
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Barbara A. Langhenry
Interim Law Director
BY: Victor R. Perez
Chief City Prosecutor
Jaclyn R. Shultz
Assistant City Prosecutor
The Justice Center, 8th Floor
1200 Ontario Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44113
LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J.:
{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Clarence Adams, appeals the October 4, 2011 judgment
entry rendered by the Cleveland Municipal Court. We reverse and remand.
I. Procedural History and Facts
{¶2} In September 2011, a complaint was filed in the municipal court charging
Adams with one count each of endangering children, domestic violence, criminal
damaging, and two counts of assault.
{¶3} Adams pled no contest to one count of assault and domestic violence, both
misdemeanors of the first degree. He was sentenced to the maximum term of six
months for each count, to be served consecutively. Adams was also fined $1,000 for
each count and ordered to have no contact with any of the victims. Adams now raises
several assignments of error relative to his plea and sentence. The first assignment of
error, which is dispositive, provides:
I. Defendant was denied due process of law when the court failed to
explain the effect of a no-contest plea.
II. Law and Analysis
{¶4} In his first assignment of error, Adams contends that his plea was
unconstitutionally entered and must be vacated because the trial court failed to inform
him of the effect of a no contest plea. We agree.
{¶5} A trial court’s obligations in accepting a plea depends on the level of the
offense to which the defendant is pleading. N. Royalton v. Semenchuk, 8th Dist. No.
95357, 2010-Ohio-6197, ¶ 7, citing State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12, 2003-Ohio-2419,
788 N.E.2d 635, ¶ 25.
{¶6} Crim.R. 2(D) defines a “petty offense” as “a misdemeanor other than a
serious offense.” Crim.R. 2(C) defines a “serious offense” as “any felony, and any
misdemeanor for which the penalty prescribed by law includes confinement for more than
six months.” Adams pled no contest to one count of assault and domestic violence, both
misdemeanors of the first degree, punishable by maximum sentences of six months.
R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). Thus, the crimes constituted petty offenses.
{¶7} Under Crim.R. 11(E), “[i]n misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses the
court * * * shall not accept [a plea] without first informing the defendant of the effect
of the plea of guilty, no contest, [or] not guilty.” Crim.R. 11(B)(2) provides that a “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 complaint, and the plea or admission shall
not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.”
{¶8} A review of the transcript from the plea hearing reveals that the trial court did
not advise Adams of the effect of the no contest pleas. The city contends that all that
was required was substantial compliance, and the trial court met that obligation. We
disagree. The trial court failed to comply, either strictly or substantially, with the
requirement that Adams be informed that his plea was not an admission of his guilt, but
an admission of the truth of the facts as alleged in the complaint. Further, Adams was
not informed, either literally or substantially, that the plea would not be used against him.
{¶9} We are also not persuaded by the city’s contention that Adams failed to
demonstrate that he was prejudiced. This court has previously held that when a trial
court completely fails to comply with a rule in accepting a plea, a demonstration of
prejudice is unnecessary. Semenchuk, 2010-Ohio-6197, at ¶ 13-14, citing State v. Clark,
119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462.
{¶10} In light of the above, the trial court violated Adams’s due process rights by
accepting his no contest plea without informing him of the effect of the plea. The first
assignment of error is therefore sustained. Because our resolution on the first
assignment of error is dispositive, the remaining assignments of error are moot, and we do
not address them. App.R. 12(A)(1)(C).
{¶11} Judgment reversed; case remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Cleveland
Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of
the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
LARRY A. JONES, SR., PRESIDING JUDGE
COLLEEN CONWAY COONEY, J., and
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR