Village of Chagrin Falls v. Katelanos
| Decision Date | 11 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54282,54282 |
| Citation | 54 Ohio App.3d 157,561 N.E.2d 992 |
| Parties | VILLAGE OF CHAGRIN FALLS, Appellee, v. KATELANOS, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Before accepting a no contest plea for a "petty traffic offense," e.g., operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, the court must inform the defendant of the effect of that plea. Traf.R. 10(D). At the very least, the court must advise the defendant about the effect of a no contest plea as set forth in Traf.R. 10(B)(2).
2. Absent a supporting record, a court cannot presume that a defendant entered a no contest plea, or that the court advised the defendant of the effect of the plea. Thus, there must be evidence that the defendant himself pleaded no contest. An acknowledgement by his counsel or the court will not suffice.
3. Before relying upon a no contest plea to convict a defendant for any misdemeanor, the court must comply with R.C. 2937.07. Thus, the court shall call for an "explanation of [the] circumstances" of the offense from the affiant or complainant or his representatives together with any statement of the accused. The court must then make a finding of guilty or not guilty.
4. In order for an "explanation of [the] circumstances" to support a guilty verdict following a no contest plea, the record must contain a statement of facts which supports all the essential elements of the offense. If the court relies upon documentary evidence to support the guilty verdict, the record must reflect this reliance.
Joseph W. Diemert, Jr. & Assoc. Co., L.P.A., and Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., for appellee.
Robert Schultz and Kenneth L. McArtor, for appellant.
Apparently pursuant to a plea bargain, the defendant, Peter Katelanos, pled no contest to driving with an excessive blood-alcohol content, and the prosecution dismissed charges of driving while intoxicated and driving left of center. The defendant appeals from the resulting conviction. His six assignments of error, set forth in an Appendix to this opinion, argue that the court (a) failed to inform him of the effect of his plea before accepting it, and (b) failed to obtain an explanation of the circumstances of the offense before finding him guilty.
We agree that the proceedings were defective, so we reverse the conviction, reinstate all the charges, and remand the cause for further proceedings.
The challenged conviction is a first degree misdemeanor, for which the maximum potential penalty is six months' imprisonment. Chagrin Falls Codified Ordinances, Sections 333.01(a)(2), 303.99 and 501.99. Consequently, the governing Traffic Rules classify it as a "petty offense." Traf.R. 2.
Before accepting a no contest plea for a "petty offense" misdemeanor, the court must inform the defendant of the effect of that plea. Traf.R. 10(D). At the very least, the court must advise the defendant about the effect of a no contest plea as set forth in Traf.R. 10(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 complaint and such plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding."
Some decisions would also require the traffic court to advise the defendant that a no contest plea waives his Fifth and Sixth Amendment constitutional rights. Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43, 44, 11 OBR 76, 77-78, 463 N.E.2d 56, 58; State v. Rogers (July 16, 1987), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 52259, 52260 and 52261, unreported, 1987 WL 14202; but, cf., State v. Bowman (Apr. 2, 1986), Hamilton App. No. C-850604, unreported.
In this case, the transcript of the plea proceedings reports that the defendant's counsel told the court that his client would plead no contest. Without saying anything to the defendant himself and without hearing the defendant say anything, the court then remarked:
On July 28, 1987, a new counsel appeared with the defendant for the imposition of sentence. The court asked defendant's counsel whether he had attended a driving school for such offenders since the last hearing. Counsel responded that he had not, and the court then said:
The defendant answered "Yes," but made no other statement at that hearing.
Thus, the transcript fails to demonstrate that the defendant entered a no contest plea, or that the court advised him about the effect of such a plea. The court's journal entries for those proceedings purport to supply the missing acts. The entry for the plea hearing states:
"The defendant present, with Attorney, withdrew his former plea of not guilty and after being fully apprised of the consequences of a change of plea entered a plea of no contest and was found guilty."
The entry for the sentencing hearing states:
"Thereupon Attorney Schultz reiterated that the defendant is ready for sentencing and after again being apprised of the consequences of the plea change, the defendant maintained his plea of no contest and was found guilty."
Absent a supporting record, we cannot presume that a defendant entered a no contest plea, or that the court first advised him of its effect. Garfield Heights v. Brewer (1984), 17 Ohio App.3d 216, 217-218, 17 OBR 458, 460, 479 N.E.2d 309, 312-313. Nor can the court's journal notations demonstrate the plea or the advice, in the face of a contrary transcript. Cf. State v. Minor (1979), 64 Ohio App.2d
129, 131, 18 O.O.3d 98, 100, 411 N.E.2d 822, 824.
Before relying upon a no contest plea to convict a defendant for any misdemeanor, the court must comply with R.C. 2937.07. See Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 9 OBR 438, 459 N.E.2d 532, syllabus. Pursuant to that statute, the court "shall call for explanation of circumstances of the offense from the affiant or complainant or his representatives" together with "any statement of [the] accused." The court must then "make [a] finding of guilty or not guilty from the explanation of [the] circumstances."
The record must show that the required explanation included a statement of facts which supports all the essential elements of the offense. Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers, supra, at 150, 9 OBR at 440, 459 N.E.2d at 535. The mere fact that the court's record includes documents which could show the defendant's guilt will not suffice. If the prosecution relies on such documents, the record must show that the court considered them. Id. at 151, 9 OBR at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
...will not suffice." Berea v. Moorer, 2016-Ohio-3452, 55 N.E.3d 1186, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.), quoting Village of Chagrin Falls v. Katelanos, 54 Ohio App.3d 157, 158, 561 N.E.2d 992 (8th Dist.1988) ; Horvath at ¶ 16–17. "[D]ocumentary evidence may suffice as an explanation of the circumstances suppor......
-
City of Seven Hills v. McKernan, 106897
...record includes documents which could show the defendant's guilt will not suffice.’ "), quoting Chagrin Falls v. Katelanos , 54 Ohio App.3d 157, 158, 561 N.E.2d 992 (8th Dist.1988).{¶18} In Bowers , the Ohio Supreme Court stated: "The question is not whether the court could have rendered an......
-
City of Bowling Green v. Schabel
...1636436, citing Cuyahoga Falls v. Bowers (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 150–151, 9 OBR 438, 459 N.E.2d 532 and Chagrin Falls v. Katelanos (1988), 54 Ohio App.3d 157, 159, 561 N.E.2d 992. {¶ 37} In the underlying cases in which appellants entered no contest pleas, the trial court held a January 2......
-
City of Cleveland v. Manuel Serrano
...150, 459 N.E.2d 532. If the judge relies upon documentary evidence to support a finding of guilt, the record must reflect this reliance. Katelanos, supra; Cuyahoga Falls, supra. The mere fact that the includes documents which show guilt is not enough. Katelanos, supra at 159. The law, howev......