City of Broadview Heights v. Richard C. Burrows, 01-LW-3940
| Decision Date | 04 October 2001 |
| Docket Number | 79161,01-LW-3940 |
| Parties | CITY OF BROADVIEW HEIGHTS, Plaintiff-Appellee v. RICHARD C. BURROWS, Defendant-Appellant |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Criminal appeal from Parma Municipal Court Case No. 00CRB 03197-1-1
For plaintiff-appellee: City of Broadview Heights KEVIN P WEILER, ESQ., CHRISTINE M. TOBIN, ESQ., Weiler & Associates 8920 Brecksville Road, Brecksville, Ohio 44141
For plaintiff-appellee: Parma Municipal Court TIMOTHY G. DOBECK, ESQ., Law Director - City of Parma, 6611 Ridge Road, Parma, Ohio 44129
For defendant-appellant: RICHARD C. BURROWS, pro se, 441 West Schaaf Road, Cleveland, Ohio 44109
The appellant, Richard C. Burrows, pro se, appeals his conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court pursuant to a no contest plea to the charge of domestic violence. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
On September 8, 2000, Burrows was arraigned on the charge of domestic violence and informed by the court of the charge:
***[O]n or about September 8, 2000, within Broadview Heights Cuyahoga County, Richard Burrows did knowingly cause or attempt to cause physical harm to a family or household member, to wit, did hit and punch live-in girlfriend, Theresa Yafanaro in violation of Revised Code Section 2919.25.***
The Court accepted Burrows' plea of not guilty to the charge and proceeded with the victim's motion for a Temporary Protection Order. The victim stated that she was afraid of Burrows when he would drink because he would become verbally and physically abusive. The motion for a Temporary Protection Order was granted, and Burrows was strictly forbidden from going anywhere near the victim or the child that he and the victim shared.
On November 14, 2000, after retaining counsel, Burrows entered a plea of no contest to the domestic violence charge. In addition to entering his plea, he waived the reading of facts and stipulated to a finding of guilt. The court found him guilty and continued the case for sentencing.
On January 3, 2001, at his sentencing, both Burrows and his counsel spoke to the court in an effort to mitigate the imposition of sentence. The trial court sentenced him to 180 days in jail, suspending 90 days, and imposed a fine of $1,000, suspending $250 of the fine.
Burrows appeals the decision of the trial court and asserts the following assignments of error.
In his first assignment of error, the appellant argues that the trial court failed to read the facts of the case into the record and that if the court had recited the facts, he would never have pled no contest to the charge.
R.C. 2937.07 governs the taking of misdemeanor pleas. In regard to a no contest plea, it provides in pertinent part:
If the plea be no contest or words of similar import in pleading to a misdemeanor, it shall constitute a stipulation that the judge or magistrate may make finding of guilty or not guilty from the explanation of circumstances, and if guilt be found, impose or continue for sentence accordingly.
Further, under Crim.R. 11(B)(2):
The 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.
In a similar case, this court has stated that under R.C. 2937.07, the record must provide an `explanation of circumstances' which includes a statement of the facts supporting all of the essential elements of the offense. City of Cleveland v. Manuel Serrano (Nov. 10, 1999), Cuyahoga App. No. 74552, unreported, 1990 Ohio App. LEXIS 5305, citing Chagrin Falls v. Katelanos (1998), 54 Ohio App.3d 1571, paragraph four of the syllabus. The trial judge must reject a plea if he or she feels that the explanation does not establish that the defendant could have been convicted of the offense charged. State v. Ritch (May 11, 1998), Scioto App. No. 97CA2491, unreported, 1998 Ohio App. LEXIS 2193, at 8; See Cleveland v. Technisort, Inc. (1985), 20 Ohio App.3d 139. However, a defendant is not prohibited from waiving the explanation of circumstances, as the appellant did in this case.
At trial, the trial judge stated to the appellant:
Additionally, under the invited error doctrine, the appellant cannot now raise an error that he himself invited or induced the trial court to make. State ex rel. Beaver v. Kontech (1998), 38 Ohio St.3d 519; State v. Nievas (1997), 121 Ohio App.3d 451, 456. In this case, the appellant, through the actions of his counsel, waived the reading of the facts of the case. He is therefore prohibited from now raising the argument that he was not read the statement of the victim at the time he made his plea of no contest.
Therefore, appellant's first assignment of error is without merit.
In the appellant's second assignment of error, he maintains that he was prejudiced by the court and his own counsel when he was not informed that the victim had been injured in a car accident the same day as the alleged incident, which he claims was the true cause of her injuries.
An...
To continue reading
Request your trial