Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

The Seventh District Court of Appeals reversed a guilty plea made in the Mahoning County Common Pleas Court because it was not made knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently as you can read by clicking here. Criminal Rule 11 requires certain things of the trial judge before a guilty plea can be accepted. Criminal Rule 11(C)(1)(c) states that judges must inform defendants of the following before their plea is accepted.
1. The defendant is waiving her right to a jury trial
2. To confront witnesses against her
3. To compulsory process for favorable witnesses
4. To require the State to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
5. And her privilege against compulsory self incrimination.
A trial judge in Mahoning County failed to comply with numbers three and four as listed above and so the Court of Appeals reversed the guilty plea and remanded the case back to the trial court.

Criminal Rule 11(B)(2) states that a "plea of no contest ... is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information, or complaint."  Ohio's Eighth District Court of Appeals just reversed a "no contest" plea and remanded the case to the trial court because the defendant and his counsel believed he could dispute the facts and plead "no contest."  The defendant faced drug charges, two of which contained a "schoolyard specification" (which enhance the charge if the offense is committed within 1,000 feet of a school).

The defendant wanted to plead "no contest" but only if the State could prove the schoolyard specification after an evidentiary hearing.  The State put on two witnesses to show the drug offenses occurred within 1000 feet of a school.  The trial court stopped the defendant from disputing the State's evidence with his own witness because the "no contest" plea was a plea to the facts as the State presented them.

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District said the trial court should have realized that the defendant did not understand the effect of his no contest plea and should have withdrawn the no contest plea.  Since the trial court accepted the no contest plea and found the defendant guilty, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case back to the trial court.  The Court of Appeals for the Eighth District determined that the defendant had not entered his "no contest" plea knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently as you can read by clicking here.

In golf, a "mulligan" is a do-over.  Hit it in the water?  Take a mulligan and hit another one.  A  do-over is what a defendant gets after his guilty plea is reversed.  The Eighth District Court of Appeals of Ohio just reversed a conviction on a guilty plea since the trial judge failed to inform the defendant of the potential fine that accompanied his plea of guilty to one count of rape with a sexual violent predator specification.  The Eighth District found that the trial court failed to substantially comply with the requirements of Criminal Rule 11(C) when it failed to mention anything about the potential fine.  Read the full decision by clicking here.  So if you have pleaded guilty and are wishing you could take a "mulligan," one thing your lawyer should check is if you faced a potential fine and whether you were informed of that fine before you pleaded guilty.

After a defendant in Greene County (county court located in Xenia, Ohio) pleaded guilty to several counts of rape and gross sexual imposition, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison.  But the defendant was not informed that he faced mandatory prison time before he pleaded guilty.  Instead, he was informed that he would be eligible for community control sanctions if he was granted judicial release.  Since the defendant was not eligible for judicial release while serving time for the rape charges which carried mandatory prison time, Ohio's Second District Court of Appeals reversed the plea and sentence and remanded the case to the trial court as you can read by clicking here.

On remand, this defendant had his sentence cut in half as you can read here or here.

Ohio's Second District Court of Appeals (Champaign County, county court located in Urbana) reversed guilty pleas to a second degree felony and two fourth degree felonies because the trial court failed to substantially comply with Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(a).  The trial court failed to inform the defendant that he was NOT eligible for community control (probation) as required.  Click here for the full decision.

On remand the defendant received a sentence that was two years shorter than the sentence he received before his guilty plea was reversed on appeal.