[Cite as State v. Beasley, 2016-Ohio-1603.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-150431 TRIAL NO. B-1405968 Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N. vs. :
ANDREA BEASLEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2016
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Marguerite Slagle, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
M OCK , Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Andrea Beasley appeals from a conviction for
possession of cocaine under R.C. 2925.11(A). While we find some merit in her sole
assignment of error, we ultimately affirm her conviction.
{¶2} The record shows that police officers stopped Beasley’s vehicle because
she was driving under suspension. The officers searched her vehicle and discovered
cocaine. Following her indictment, Beasley filed a motion to suppress in which she
alleged that the stop and search of her vehicle violated her rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion and set the
matter for a jury trial.
{¶3} At the next hearing, Beasley’s counsel indicated that she wished to enter a
plea, but that counsel had “a few things” he needed to put on the record. He stated:
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
guilty or not guilty [plea].
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.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶4} The trial court responded, “I see what you are saying. Okay. All right.
Anything from the State regarding that?” The state replied, “No, Judge.” After a
recitation of the facts, Beasley then entered a guilty plea. The trial court sentenced her to
community control, and this appeal followed.
{¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Beasley contends that the trial court erred
in implementing a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. She argues that
she was prejudiced because she could not appeal the court’s ruling on her motion to
suppress. Though we agree that it is error for a trial court to have a blanket policy of not
accepting no-contest pleas, we find that on the record before us, the error was not
preserved for appeal and, therefore, this assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶6} A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but an admission of the
facts as alleged in the indictment. It cannot be used against a defendant in any
subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. Crim.R. 11(B)(2); State v. Anderson, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-070098, 2007-Ohio-6218, ¶ 11.
{¶7} A guilty plea, on the other hand, is a complete admission of guilt. Crim.R.
11(B)(1); State v. Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747, 2009-Ohio-1370, 910 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 23
(1st Dist.). It renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent
with factual guilt. A defendant who enters a guilty plea waives the right to appeal the
denial of most pretrial motions, including motions to suppress. Morgan at ¶ 25-26;
State v. Chichester, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-050381, 2006-Ohio-4030, ¶ 11.
{¶8} A trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject a no-contest plea.
State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423, 428, 706 N.E.2d 409 (2d Dist.1997); State v.
Rader, 55 Ohio App.3d 102, 104-105, 563 N.E.2d 304 (1st Dist.1988). Numerous courts,
including this one, have held that the trial court errs when it fails to exercise its
discretion according to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See State v.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Jones, 2013-Ohio-3559, 996 N.E.2d 569, ¶ 10-20 (6th Dist.); State v. Allen, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 98394, 2013-Ohio-1656, ¶ 9-13; Bauer v. Heaton, 68 Ohio App. 181, 183-
184, 38 N.E.2d 413 (1st Dist.1941).
{¶9} Further, other appellate districts have specifically held that the trial court
errs in following a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. In Carter, the
Second Appellate District held that the trial court’s policy of not accepting no-contest
pleas was an abuse of discretion because the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider
the facts and circumstances of the case. Carter at 428. The court found that the
defendant was prejudiced because the trial court denied the defendant the right to
appeal a pretrial motion. Id. at 429. It further stated that “we cannot say that [the
defendant’s] guilty plea and consequent waiver of his right to appeal the denial of his
speedy trial motion was independent of, and untainted by, the trial court’s refusal to
accept his no-contest plea.” Id.
{¶10} In State v. Graves, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-282, 1998 Ohio App.
LEXIS 5608, *8-11 (Nov. 19, 1998), the Tenth Appellate District stated that the trial
court had given no reason for refusing to accept a no-contest plea other than a blanket
policy of not accepting such pleas, and that it had abused its discretion by refusing to
accept the defendant’s plea. Id. at *10. Further, the court found that the defendant was
prejudiced because he had wanted to use the no-contest plea to preserve his rights in an
underlying insurance dispute. Id. at *11.
{¶11} This court has not specifically addressed this issue. But in State v.
Harper, 47 Ohio App.3d 109, 111-112, 547 N.E.2d 395 (1st Dist.1988), we held that the
trial court’s failure to accept a no-contest plea was an abuse of discretion because the
colloquy indicated that the court had participated in plea bargaining. We also stated
that the colloquy showed that the trial court had not wished to accept a no-contest plea
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to prevent the defendant from exercising his right to appeal and that the trial court had
abused its discretion by basing its decision whether to accept a no-contest plea “upon
such inappropriate considerations.” Id. at 112. We further stated that “we find that by
repeatedly advising the defendant that any plea agreement must be based on a guilty
plea, the court adversely affected the voluntariness of defendant’s eventual decision to
plead guilty.” Id.
{¶12} Thus, there is little doubt that a trial court’s blanket policy to refuse to
accept no-contest pleas is error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Beasley, 2016-Ohio-1603.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO, : APPEAL NO. C-150431 TRIAL NO. B-1405968 Plaintiff-Appellee, : O P I N I O N. vs. :
ANDREA BEASLEY, :
Defendant-Appellant. :
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas
Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 20, 2016
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Sean M. Donovan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,
Raymond T. Faller, Hamilton County Public Defender, and Marguerite Slagle, Assistant Public Defender, for Defendant-Appellant.
Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
M OCK , Judge.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Andrea Beasley appeals from a conviction for
possession of cocaine under R.C. 2925.11(A). While we find some merit in her sole
assignment of error, we ultimately affirm her conviction.
{¶2} The record shows that police officers stopped Beasley’s vehicle because
she was driving under suspension. The officers searched her vehicle and discovered
cocaine. Following her indictment, Beasley filed a motion to suppress in which she
alleged that the stop and search of her vehicle violated her rights under the Fourth
Amendment. Following a hearing, the trial court overruled the motion and set the
matter for a jury trial.
{¶3} At the next hearing, Beasley’s counsel indicated that she wished to enter a
plea, but that counsel had “a few things” he needed to put on the record. He stated:
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
guilty or not guilty [plea].
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.
2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
{¶4} The trial court responded, “I see what you are saying. Okay. All right.
Anything from the State regarding that?” The state replied, “No, Judge.” After a
recitation of the facts, Beasley then entered a guilty plea. The trial court sentenced her to
community control, and this appeal followed.
{¶5} In her sole assignment of error, Beasley contends that the trial court erred
in implementing a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. She argues that
she was prejudiced because she could not appeal the court’s ruling on her motion to
suppress. Though we agree that it is error for a trial court to have a blanket policy of not
accepting no-contest pleas, we find that on the record before us, the error was not
preserved for appeal and, therefore, this assignment of error is not well taken.
{¶6} A no-contest plea is not an admission of guilt, but an admission of the
facts as alleged in the indictment. It cannot be used against a defendant in any
subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. Crim.R. 11(B)(2); State v. Anderson, 1st Dist.
Hamilton No. C-070098, 2007-Ohio-6218, ¶ 11.
{¶7} A guilty plea, on the other hand, is a complete admission of guilt. Crim.R.
11(B)(1); State v. Morgan, 181 Ohio App.3d 747, 2009-Ohio-1370, 910 N.E.2d 1075, ¶ 23
(1st Dist.). It renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent
with factual guilt. A defendant who enters a guilty plea waives the right to appeal the
denial of most pretrial motions, including motions to suppress. Morgan at ¶ 25-26;
State v. Chichester, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-050381, 2006-Ohio-4030, ¶ 11.
{¶8} A trial court has broad discretion to accept or reject a no-contest plea.
State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423, 428, 706 N.E.2d 409 (2d Dist.1997); State v.
Rader, 55 Ohio App.3d 102, 104-105, 563 N.E.2d 304 (1st Dist.1988). Numerous courts,
including this one, have held that the trial court errs when it fails to exercise its
discretion according to the facts and circumstances of the individual case. See State v.
3 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
Jones, 2013-Ohio-3559, 996 N.E.2d 569, ¶ 10-20 (6th Dist.); State v. Allen, 8th Dist.
Cuyahoga No. 98394, 2013-Ohio-1656, ¶ 9-13; Bauer v. Heaton, 68 Ohio App. 181, 183-
184, 38 N.E.2d 413 (1st Dist.1941).
{¶9} Further, other appellate districts have specifically held that the trial court
errs in following a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas. In Carter, the
Second Appellate District held that the trial court’s policy of not accepting no-contest
pleas was an abuse of discretion because the trial court arbitrarily refused to consider
the facts and circumstances of the case. Carter at 428. The court found that the
defendant was prejudiced because the trial court denied the defendant the right to
appeal a pretrial motion. Id. at 429. It further stated that “we cannot say that [the
defendant’s] guilty plea and consequent waiver of his right to appeal the denial of his
speedy trial motion was independent of, and untainted by, the trial court’s refusal to
accept his no-contest plea.” Id.
{¶10} In State v. Graves, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 98AP-282, 1998 Ohio App.
LEXIS 5608, *8-11 (Nov. 19, 1998), the Tenth Appellate District stated that the trial
court had given no reason for refusing to accept a no-contest plea other than a blanket
policy of not accepting such pleas, and that it had abused its discretion by refusing to
accept the defendant’s plea. Id. at *10. Further, the court found that the defendant was
prejudiced because he had wanted to use the no-contest plea to preserve his rights in an
underlying insurance dispute. Id. at *11.
{¶11} This court has not specifically addressed this issue. But in State v.
Harper, 47 Ohio App.3d 109, 111-112, 547 N.E.2d 395 (1st Dist.1988), we held that the
trial court’s failure to accept a no-contest plea was an abuse of discretion because the
colloquy indicated that the court had participated in plea bargaining. We also stated
that the colloquy showed that the trial court had not wished to accept a no-contest plea
4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
to prevent the defendant from exercising his right to appeal and that the trial court had
abused its discretion by basing its decision whether to accept a no-contest plea “upon
such inappropriate considerations.” Id. at 112. We further stated that “we find that by
repeatedly advising the defendant that any plea agreement must be based on a guilty
plea, the court adversely affected the voluntariness of defendant’s eventual decision to
plead guilty.” Id.
{¶12} Thus, there is little doubt that a trial court’s blanket policy to refuse to
accept no-contest pleas is error. The question in this case is whether that error was
preserved for appeal. Beasley’s counsel stated that she would have entered a no-contest
plea, but for the trial court’s blanket policy against accepting such pleas. He referred to a
conference in chambers that is not part of the record on appeal, and there is no other
indication in the record of what occurred. This court cannot add matter to the record
that was not part of the trial court’s proceedings and decide the appeal on the basis of
the new matter. State v. Hamilton, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-140290, 2015-Ohio-334, ¶
15, citing State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402, 377 N.E.2d 500 (1978).
{¶13} Further, despite Beasley’s statement for the record, Beasley never
attempted to plead no-contest. We believe it is incumbent on the defendant to enter the
no-contest plea and have the trial court refuse to accept the plea on the record.
Immediately after the recitation of facts, Beasley entered a guilty plea. Under the
circumstances, Beasley forfeited her right to raise the issue on appeal. See State v.
Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385, 2015-Ohio-2459, 38 N.E.3d 860, ¶ 21. Consequently, we
overrule Beasley’s sole assignment of error and affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
S TAUTBERG , J., concurs. F ISCHER , P.J., dissents.
5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
F ISCHER , P.J., dissenting. {¶14} I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that a trial court’s
implementaton of a blanket policy of refusing to accept no-contest pleas is improper.
But I disgree with the conclusion that Beasley failed to preserve the error for appeal.
{¶15} Beasley’s counsel noted twice on the record that she wished to plead
no contest to preserve her right to appeal the trial court’s denial of her motion to
suppress, but that in chambers the court had stated it had a blanket policy against
accepting no-contest pleas. The trial court not only did not contradict that
statement, it concurred: “I see what you are saying. Okay. All right. Anything from
the State regarding that?” If counsel’s assertion was incorrect, the trial court would
have so stated.
{¶16} Further, the state then did not contradict Beasley’s statement. Her
counsel specifically stated that the state had agreed to let her plead no contest and
that the court had a blanket policy against accepting such pleas. When given the
opportunity, the state did not indicate that counsel’s statement was incorrect in any
way.
{¶17} Both defense counsel and the assistant prosecuting attorney are well-
qualified and excellent lawyers, who are known to follow the rules of court. The
Comments to Prof.Cond.R. 3.3, entitled “Candor to the Tribunal,” specifically state:
[T]the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false
statements of law or fact or evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.
* * * [A]n assertion purporting to be on the lawyer’s own knowledge,
as in an affidavit by the lawyer or a statement in open court, may
properly be made only when the lawyer knows the assertion is true or
believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry.
6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS
(Emphasis added.) Prof.Cond.R. 3.3, Comments 2 and 3.
{¶18} So I presume that both lawyers, as part of regular procedure, followed
these exhortations, and properly and correctly reported what had occurred in
chambers. If the information was untrue, good lawyers like these would not have
placed it in or agreed to it on the record. Therefore, I am required, as a matter of
ethics, to accept their statements as accurate representations and, effectively, an
undisputed stipulation as to the events in chambers.
{¶19} Thus, I see no valid reason to require Beasley to enter a no-contest
plea on the record when it is clear that doing so would have been futile. The law does
not require a vain or useless act. Scanlon v. Scanlon, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 99028
and 99052, 2013-Ohio-2694, ¶ 17; Showe Mgmt. Corp. v. Moore, 5th Dist. Licking
No. 08 CA 10, 2009-Ohio-2312, ¶ 42.
{¶20} I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to
accept Beasley’s no-contest plea based on a blanket policy, a policy stated and then
reiterated on the record without any objection or contradiction by the trial court or
two officers of the court, and that therefore, Beasley was prejudiced as she was
denied the right to appeal the denial of her motion to suppress. (I take no position as
to the merits of that motion.) Consequently, I would reverse the trial court’s
judgment and remand the matter to the trial court to allow Beasley to enter a new
plea, or go to trial.
Please note: The court has recorded its own entry this date.