State v. Bray
This text of 2026 Ohio 871 (State v. Bray) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
[Cite as State v. Bray, 2026-Ohio-871.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
WARREN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, : CASE NO. CA2025-09-081 Appellee, : OPINION AND vs. : JUDGMENT ENTRY 3/16/2026 NASHIRA M. BRAY, :
Appellant. :
:
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM FRANKLIN MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. 25-05-TRD-2642
Maxwell D. Kinman, City of Franklin Prosecuting Attorney, and David C. Wagner, City of Franklin Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Gantt & Blain Co., L.P.A., and Blake W. S. Evans, for appellant.
____________ OPINION
SIEBERT, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Nashira Bray, appeals her conviction in the Franklin Municipal
Court following her no contest plea to one count of failure to stop after an accident. After Warren CA2025-09-081
reviewing the record, we conclude that Bray's plea was entered knowingly, voluntarily,
and intelligently. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in accepting the plea.
Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On May 14, 2025, Bray was involved in a motor vehicle accident and
subsequently left the scene. Law enforcement later identified her by tracing her license
plate and contacted her by telephone. During that conversation, Bray admitted that she
had been driving the vehicle at the time of the crash and explained that she left because
she believed that she could repair the damage to her vehicle herself.
{¶ 3} Bray was later contacted by the Franklin Police Department and advised to
report to the police department to receive a citation and provide proof of insurance. After
Bray failed to do so in a timely manner, a warrant was issued for her arrest.
{¶ 4} She was subsequently charged with one count of failure to stop after an
accident in violation of R.C. 4549.02, a first-degree misdemeanor. Bray was arraigned in
the Franklin Municipal Court, where counsel was appointed to represent her.
{¶ 5} On August 19, 2025, Bray appeared for a dispositional hearing. Her counsel
informed the trial court that Bray intended to enter a no contest plea. The court advised
Bray of the effect of such a plea, including the rights she would waive by entering it. Bray
then entered a no contest plea, which the court accepted before finding her guilty.
{¶ 6} At sentencing, Bray's counsel informed the court that Bray suffers from
anxiety and is receiving counseling. In her allocution, Bray attempted to explain her
interactions with law enforcement, stating that she "wasn't hiding from them," but had
been experiencing panic attacks. She further stated that she did not remember driving
away from the scene because she "blacked out" due to anxiety. Bray also indicated that
she had attempted to obtain medication for her condition but had been unable to do so
because of her fear of taking medication.
-2- Warren CA2025-09-081
{¶ 7} The trial court sentenced Bray to three days in jail, imposed a $250 fine,
and ordered a mandatory six-month driver's license suspension. Bray now appeals,
raising a single assignment of error for review.
Appeal
{¶ 8} In her sole assignment of error, Bray argues that the trial court erred by
accepting her no contest plea because it was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily
made. She contends that her anxiety and mental health issues impaired her ability to
understand the consequences of her plea, and therefore the trial court should have
conducted a competency hearing or ordered a psychological evaluation before accepting
it.
{¶ 9} "A trial court's obligations in accepting a plea depend upon the level of
offense to which the defendant is pleading." State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 6. The
plea procedure required in a misdemeanor case under Crim.R. 11 is less elaborate than
that required in a felony case. State v. Fluhart, 2021-Ohio-2153, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.).
Misdemeanor cases may involve either "serious offenses" or "petty offenses." A "serious
offense" is one for which the penalty includes more than six months of confinement,
whereas a "petty offense" encompasses all other misdemeanor offenses. Id., citing
Crim.R. 2(C) and (D). Under Crim.R. 11(E), when accepting a plea in a petty offense
case, the trial court must inform the defendant of the effect of a guilty or no contest plea
before accepting it.
{¶ 10} Crim.R. 11(B)(2) provides that a no contest plea "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." State v. Daly, 2015-Ohio-5034,
¶ 16 (12th Dist.).
-3- Warren CA2025-09-081
{¶ 11} In this case, Bray was charged with a first-degree misdemeanor punishable
by a maximum of 180 days in jail. R.C. 4549.02(B)(1); R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). Her offense
therefore qualifies as a petty offense, and the trial court's only obligation under Crim.R.
11 was to inform her of the effect of her plea. Jones at paragraph two of the syllabus ("To
satisfy the requirement of informing a defendant of the effect of a plea, a trial court must
inform the defendant of the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B).").
{¶ 12} Upon review of the record, we conclude that Bray entered a valid no contest
plea to one count of failure to stop after an accident, and that the plea was made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. It is undisputed that the trial court informed Bray
of the effect of her plea pursuant to Crim.R. 11(B). Instead, Bray challenges the plea on
the basis of her mental health conditions, arguing that the court should have ordered a
psychological evaluation or conducted a competency determination.
{¶ 13} These arguments lack merit. The constitutional standard for determining
competency to enter a plea is the same as the standard for competency to stand trial.
State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 56, citing Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 396-
399 (1993). A defendant is competent if she possesses a "sufficient present ability to
consult with [her] lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding" and has
both a rational and factual understanding of the proceedings. Id.
{¶ 14} The record contains no indication that Bray's mental health concerns
impaired her competency or required the court to question her ability to proceed. During
the hearing, Bray appeared before the trial court, responded appropriately to questions,
and demonstrated an ability to participate meaningfully in the proceedings, including
consulting with her counsel. Although she later stated—during allocution at sentencing—
that she suffers from anxiety and other mental health conditions, she provided no
evidence to substantiate that this condition affected her competency at the time she
-4- Warren CA2025-09-081
entered her plea. Bray points to a moment during the dispositional hearing when a victim
advocate prompted her to "stand up," but this brief exchange does not indicate that she
was unable to understand the proceedings or the implications of her plea. Nothing in the
record suggests that Bray lacked an understanding of the nature of her plea and the
proceedings, the rights she was waiving, or the consequences of entering a no contest
plea.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 Ohio 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bray-ohioctapp-2026.