[Cite as E. Cleveland v. Kline, 2025-Ohio-1063.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114180 v. :
CHRISTOPHER KLINE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 27, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the East Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 24TRC00102
Appearances:
Willa M. Hemmons, City of East Cleveland Director of Law, and Heather McCollough, Prosecutor, for appellee.
Patituce & Associates, LLC, and Catherine Meehan, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Christopher Kline, appeals his judgment of
conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence (“OVI”) in violation of
East Cleveland Cod.Ord. 333.01(a)(1)(A). Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s
judgment. In this case, appellant was charged with an OVI offense that was a
“petty offense” for purposes of entering a plea. Traf.R. 2(D).1 Appellant initially
entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on May 9, 2024. The trial court set
the matter for a pretrial the morning of May 20, 2024.
The transcript reflects that during the May 20, 2024 proceedings, the
trial-court judge heard multiple traffic cases on the court’s docket. Prior to calling
each individual case, the trial court provided a general pronouncement to all
defendants in the courtroom. When appellant’s case was called, defense counsel
indicated appellant would be entering a plea of no contest to the OVI charge. The
trial court ensured the factual basis for the OVI charge was placed on the record.
Immediately after the factual basis for the charge was provided, the trial court
stated: “Okay. All right. So based on that information, I will accept the plea of no
contest . . . .” However, there is no indication in the record that appellant ever
actually entered a plea. Nonetheless, the trial court, “accepting the plea of no contest
with the finding of guilt,” proceeded to sentence appellant.
Appellant timely appealed. Under his two assignments of error,
appellant claims that the trial court erred by (1) accepting his plea of no contest
without complying with Crim.R. 11 and Traf.R. 10, and (2) accepting his plea without
advising him of his constitutional rights.
1 Traf.R. 2(D) defines a “petty offense” as “an offense for which the penalty prescribed by law includes confinement for six months or less.” It is not disputed that appellant’s offense was a petty offense. Because this case involves the alleged violation of a traffic ordinance,
the Ohio Traffic Rules apply. See State v. Watkins, 2003-Ohio-2419, ¶ 10.2
Traf.R. 1(B) states that the traffic rules “shall be construed and applied to secure the
fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity and uniformity
in procedure, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.”
Pursuant to Traf.R. 10(A), “A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty
or, with the consent of the court, no contest. All pleas may be made orally. . . .”
Relative hereto, Ohio Traf.R. 10(D), which applies to misdemeanor cases involving
petty offenses, instructs as follows:
Misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses. In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses, except those processed in a traffic violations bureau, the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty. This information may be presented by general orientation or pronouncement.
“[W]here a defendant charged with a petty misdemeanor traffic offense pleads guilty
or no contest, the trial court complies with Traf.R. 10(D) by informing the defendant
of the information contained in Traf.R. 10(B).” Watkins at ¶ 28. Traf.R. 10(B)(2)
defines the effect of a no-contest plea.3 Though literal compliance with the rule is
2 Although Crim.R. 11 largely mirrors Traf.R. 10, Crim.R. 11 is inapplicable to traffic
cases pursuant to Crim.R. 1(C)(3). Watkins at ¶ 15. Further, “[t]he protections that the Criminal Rules provide to felony defendants should not be read into the Ohio Traffic Rules, which deal only with misdemeanor offenses.” Id. at ¶ 28.
3 Traf.R. 10(B)(2) provides: “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.” not required, it is the better practice for trial courts to adhere to the language of the
rule. See Toledo v. Blackshear, 2020-Ohio-1233, ¶ 28 (6th Dist.).
In this matter, appellant focuses much of his argument upon whether
the trial court complied with the mandates of Traf.R. 10. In his appellate brief,
appellant refers to his individual exchange with the trial-court judge and argues that
the plea colloquy is devoid of any reference to the effect of a no-contest plea. He also
claims he was not advised of his constitutional rights.4 The city responds that a
general pronouncement was made at the start of the proceedings on May 20, 2024,
during which the trial court provided an advisement to all defendants in the
courtroom regarding their constitutional rights and the effects of various pleas. The
city argues that appellant fully participated in the hearing and that the trial court
satisfied the mandates of Traf.R. 10. On the other hand, appellant claims in his reply
brief that there is nothing in the record to suggest appellant was actually present
during the general pronouncement and that the general advisement given still failed
to comply with Traf.R. 10.5 In the end, regardless of any deficiencies in informing
4 We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that unlike felony cases,
in misdemeanor cases, “there are no such constitutionally mandated information requirements for defendants charged with misdemeanors.” Watkins at ¶ 28.
5 During the general pronouncement that was made during the May 20, 2024
proceedings, the trial court stated the following:
Guilty is where you are admitting what you are accused of. And if you enter a plea of guilt in Municipal Court, you subject yourself to the possibility of a fine from zero to $1000, zero days in jail up to six months in jail. That’s on a guilty plea or guilty finding. The same applies to a no contest plea. The only appellant of the effect of the plea, the transcript shows that appellant never actually
entered a plea of no contest. The city conceded this at the oral argument. This alone
is dispositive of the appeal.
The record shows that when appellant’s case was called before the
trial court, defense counsel indicated that appellant would be entering a plea of no
contest. The trial court indicated its understanding that appellant was “[going to]
enter a plea to the OVI” and, after the factual basis for the charge was placed on the
record, stated it “will accept a plea of no contest[.]” However, it is evident from the
transcript that the appellant never expressly tendered a plea of no contest.
Additionally, the record before us does not contain a signed writing reflecting an
expressed plea.
A trial court cannot accept a plea pursuant to Traf.R. 10(D) if the plea
is never actually entered. Further, as this court has previously stated, “‘A court may
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as E. Cleveland v. Kline, 2025-Ohio-1063.]
COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, :
Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114180 v. :
CHRISTOPHER KLINE, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 27, 2025
Criminal Appeal from the East Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 24TRC00102
Appearances:
Willa M. Hemmons, City of East Cleveland Director of Law, and Heather McCollough, Prosecutor, for appellee.
Patituce & Associates, LLC, and Catherine Meehan, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:
Defendant-appellant, Christopher Kline, appeals his judgment of
conviction for operating a vehicle while under the influence (“OVI”) in violation of
East Cleveland Cod.Ord. 333.01(a)(1)(A). Upon review, we reverse the trial court’s
judgment. In this case, appellant was charged with an OVI offense that was a
“petty offense” for purposes of entering a plea. Traf.R. 2(D).1 Appellant initially
entered a plea of not guilty at his arraignment on May 9, 2024. The trial court set
the matter for a pretrial the morning of May 20, 2024.
The transcript reflects that during the May 20, 2024 proceedings, the
trial-court judge heard multiple traffic cases on the court’s docket. Prior to calling
each individual case, the trial court provided a general pronouncement to all
defendants in the courtroom. When appellant’s case was called, defense counsel
indicated appellant would be entering a plea of no contest to the OVI charge. The
trial court ensured the factual basis for the OVI charge was placed on the record.
Immediately after the factual basis for the charge was provided, the trial court
stated: “Okay. All right. So based on that information, I will accept the plea of no
contest . . . .” However, there is no indication in the record that appellant ever
actually entered a plea. Nonetheless, the trial court, “accepting the plea of no contest
with the finding of guilt,” proceeded to sentence appellant.
Appellant timely appealed. Under his two assignments of error,
appellant claims that the trial court erred by (1) accepting his plea of no contest
without complying with Crim.R. 11 and Traf.R. 10, and (2) accepting his plea without
advising him of his constitutional rights.
1 Traf.R. 2(D) defines a “petty offense” as “an offense for which the penalty prescribed by law includes confinement for six months or less.” It is not disputed that appellant’s offense was a petty offense. Because this case involves the alleged violation of a traffic ordinance,
the Ohio Traffic Rules apply. See State v. Watkins, 2003-Ohio-2419, ¶ 10.2
Traf.R. 1(B) states that the traffic rules “shall be construed and applied to secure the
fair, impartial, speedy and sure administration of justice, simplicity and uniformity
in procedure, and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay.”
Pursuant to Traf.R. 10(A), “A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty
or, with the consent of the court, no contest. All pleas may be made orally. . . .”
Relative hereto, Ohio Traf.R. 10(D), which applies to misdemeanor cases involving
petty offenses, instructs as follows:
Misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses. In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses, except those processed in a traffic violations bureau, the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty. This information may be presented by general orientation or pronouncement.
“[W]here a defendant charged with a petty misdemeanor traffic offense pleads guilty
or no contest, the trial court complies with Traf.R. 10(D) by informing the defendant
of the information contained in Traf.R. 10(B).” Watkins at ¶ 28. Traf.R. 10(B)(2)
defines the effect of a no-contest plea.3 Though literal compliance with the rule is
2 Although Crim.R. 11 largely mirrors Traf.R. 10, Crim.R. 11 is inapplicable to traffic
cases pursuant to Crim.R. 1(C)(3). Watkins at ¶ 15. Further, “[t]he protections that the Criminal Rules provide to felony defendants should not be read into the Ohio Traffic Rules, which deal only with misdemeanor offenses.” Id. at ¶ 28.
3 Traf.R. 10(B)(2) provides: “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.” not required, it is the better practice for trial courts to adhere to the language of the
rule. See Toledo v. Blackshear, 2020-Ohio-1233, ¶ 28 (6th Dist.).
In this matter, appellant focuses much of his argument upon whether
the trial court complied with the mandates of Traf.R. 10. In his appellate brief,
appellant refers to his individual exchange with the trial-court judge and argues that
the plea colloquy is devoid of any reference to the effect of a no-contest plea. He also
claims he was not advised of his constitutional rights.4 The city responds that a
general pronouncement was made at the start of the proceedings on May 20, 2024,
during which the trial court provided an advisement to all defendants in the
courtroom regarding their constitutional rights and the effects of various pleas. The
city argues that appellant fully participated in the hearing and that the trial court
satisfied the mandates of Traf.R. 10. On the other hand, appellant claims in his reply
brief that there is nothing in the record to suggest appellant was actually present
during the general pronouncement and that the general advisement given still failed
to comply with Traf.R. 10.5 In the end, regardless of any deficiencies in informing
4 We note that the Supreme Court of Ohio has recognized that unlike felony cases,
in misdemeanor cases, “there are no such constitutionally mandated information requirements for defendants charged with misdemeanors.” Watkins at ¶ 28.
5 During the general pronouncement that was made during the May 20, 2024
proceedings, the trial court stated the following:
Guilty is where you are admitting what you are accused of. And if you enter a plea of guilt in Municipal Court, you subject yourself to the possibility of a fine from zero to $1000, zero days in jail up to six months in jail. That’s on a guilty plea or guilty finding. The same applies to a no contest plea. The only appellant of the effect of the plea, the transcript shows that appellant never actually
entered a plea of no contest. The city conceded this at the oral argument. This alone
is dispositive of the appeal.
The record shows that when appellant’s case was called before the
trial court, defense counsel indicated that appellant would be entering a plea of no
contest. The trial court indicated its understanding that appellant was “[going to]
enter a plea to the OVI” and, after the factual basis for the charge was placed on the
record, stated it “will accept a plea of no contest[.]” However, it is evident from the
transcript that the appellant never expressly tendered a plea of no contest.
Additionally, the record before us does not contain a signed writing reflecting an
expressed plea.
A trial court cannot accept a plea pursuant to Traf.R. 10(D) if the plea
is never actually entered. Further, as this court has previously stated, “‘A court may
not convict and sentence a defendant where no plea has been entered upon the
record.’” See Cleveland v. Edwards, 2018-Ohio-583, ¶ 15 (8th Dist.), quoting
Cleveland v. Chappell, 2017-Ohio-4070, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Geiger,
2024-Ohio-740, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). Because appellant never entered a plea on the
record, his conviction is a nullity. Edwards at ¶ 15. For this reason, we must reverse
the judgment of the trial court.
difference is a no contest plea cannot be used against you in a later proceeding. Judgment reversed, and case remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.
It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the East
Cleveland Municipal Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27
of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
______________________ SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE
MICHAEL JOHN RYAN, P.J., and KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR