When pleading "no contest" you are admitting the facts as alleged
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court should have realized that the defendant did not understand the effect of his no contest plea and should have withdrawn the no contest plea.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.
