Ohio Criminal Appeals Lawyer Blog

Getting out of a plea is hard. I have been able to get three pleas reversed on appeal as you can see here.

In order to get a plea reversed, you have to find something that was done incorrectly at your plea hearing. Mistakes happen and it is possible. But today the Ohio Supreme Court made it harder for a defendant to get out of his plea as you can read in State v. Barker, 2011-Ohio-4130.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

Contact me 24/7 by sending an email to ohiocriminalappealslawyer@gmail.com

The Delaware County Municipal Court apparently figured it could save a bunch of time by informing all the defendants in a group about the rights they were giving up by pleading guilty or no contest. One defendant in the audience on August 11, 2003, who was sitting behind the court railing was informed with everyone else that he may face deportation, exclusion from the U.S., or denied naturalization if he pleads guilty or no contest and he is not a U.S. citizen. This attempt at being efficient with the court's time backfired in one case. Mateo Zabala made a motion to withdraw his plea since he was not addressed personally about the warnings required by R.C. 2943.031. The trial judge denied the motion. The Fifth District Court of Appeals for Delaware County reversed the trial judge and said that a defendant must be personally addressed and the trial judge must make sure the defendant fully understands the immigration consequences of his plea before accepting the plea. The case was sent back to the trial court. State v. Zabala, 2011-Ohio-2947.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private criminal defense lawyer. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

One thing a trial judge must tell a defendant who is pleading guilty or "no contest," is that the defendant has the right to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses in his favor at trial. Trial judges must strictly comply with the requirement to so inform a defendant because the right to compulsory process is a constitutionally protected right. A Lucas County judge failed to inform a defendant about this right and so the Sixth District Court of Appeals vacated the "no contest" plea and remanded the case to the trial court as you can read here.

If you are accused of a crime or have been convicted already, contact me if you can afford to hire a private attorney. Otherwise, contact your county or state public defender to see if they can help.

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.