State v. Beasley
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Citation | 2018 Ohio 16,97 N.E.3d 474,152 Ohio St.3d 470 |
| Docket Number | No. 2016–1020,2016–1020 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. BEASLEY, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 04 January 2018 |
152 Ohio St.3d 470
97 N.E.3d 474
2018 Ohio 16
The STATE of Ohio, Appellee,
v.
BEASLEY, Appellant.
No. 2016–1020
Supreme Court of Ohio.
Submitted May 16, 2017
Decided January 4, 2018
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Joshua A. Thompson, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
French, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Andrea Beasley, appeals the judgment of the First District Court of Appeals, which concluded that Beasley forfeited her right to challenge the trial court's policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. We agree with the court of appeals that the trial court erred by adhering to such an arbitrary policy. But we also conclude that Beasley preserved the error for appeal. For the reasons below, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and remand the matter to the trial court to allow Beasley to enter a new plea in accordance with Crim.R. 11.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} The Hamilton County Grand Jury indicted Beasley for possession of cocaine discovered during a traffic stop. Beasley filed a motion to suppress evidence of the cocaine on the grounds that the stop and search of her vehicle violated both the United States and Ohio Constitutions. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion.
{¶ 3} On the day of trial, Beasley and her attorney appeared before the trial-court judge to enter her plea, with the prosecutor present. Before entering her plea, Beasley's attorney summarized on the record an earlier discussion that took place between the judge, the prosecutor, and Beasley's attorney in the judge's chambers:
Judge, we had a conversation in chambers. My client wishes to plead no contest. But as this Court explained, the Court has a blanket policy [of] not accepting no contest pleas, and the Court will only accept a [plea of] guilty or not guilty.
The State has agreed to allow her to plead no contest, and we discussed the fact that my client wants to plead no contest to preserve her right to appeal the motion to suppress that was denied. But the Court reiterated that it has a policy of not accepting no contest pleas under any circumstances.
She does not dispute the facts of the case. But in light of her options, she wants to enter the plea.
{¶ 4} The judge responded, "I see what you're saying. Okay. All right. Anything from the State regarding that?"
{¶ 5} The prosecutor replied, "No, judge."
{¶ 6} After ascertaining that Beasley understood the effects of her plea and that she made a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of her constitutional rights, the court accepted Beasley's guilty plea. The court then sentenced Beasley to three years of community control.
{¶ 7} On appeal to the First District Court of Appeals, Beasley argued in her sole assignment of error that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to accept no-contest pleas and prejudiced Beasley by forcing her to waive an appeal of the motion-to-suppress ruling. The First District agreed with Beasley that the trial court erred in adopting a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. The court found, however, that Beasley did not preserve the error for appeal. The court concluded that Beasley should have entered her no-contest plea and then had the trial court refuse to accept the plea on the record.
{¶ 8} Judge (now Justice) Fischer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hackett
...172 N.E.3d 96 determining principles, rules, or standards and/or without regard for the facts or circumstances. See State v. Beasley , 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 12.{¶ 86} In this case, the trial court erroneously found Hackett's request for assistance from standby c......
-
State v. Myqual Sims
...(1990). "[A]n 'arbitrary' decision is one 16 made 'without consideration of or regard for facts [or] circumstances.'" State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 12, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 125 (10th Ed.2014), and citing Dayton ex rel. Scandrick v. McGee, 67 ......
-
Lucarell v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 2016–0585
...of liability becomes effective upon execution and delivery and bars any claims encompassed within it, unless it was procured by fraud, 97 N.E.3d 474duress, or other wrongful conduct. A claimant asserting duress is required to prove duress by clear and convincing evidence. Although the preve......
-
State v. Hackett
...adequate determining principles, rules, or standards and/or without regard for the facts or circumstances. See State v. Beasley, 152 Ohio St.3d 470, 2018-Ohio-16, 97 N.E.3d 474, ¶ 12. {¶ 86} In this case, the trial court erroneously found Hackett's request for assistance from standby counse......