State v. Dumas

2024 Ohio 2731

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: July 19, 2024
• Docket: 30014
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Dumas, 2024-Ohio-2731.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT MONTGOMERY COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO : : Appellee : C.A. No. 30014 : v. : Trial Court Case No. 23CRB01433 : JULIA A. DUMAS : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) : Appellant : :

...........

OPINION

Rendered on July 19, 2024

THOMAS W. KIDD, JR., Attorney for Appellant

JOHN D. EVERETT, Attorney for Appellee

.............

EPLEY, J.

{¶ 1} Julia A. Dumas pled guilty in the Kettering Municipal Court to disorderly

conduct, a fourth-degree misdemeanor. She appeals, claiming that her plea was not

made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily because the trial court failed to inform her -2-

of the effect of her plea. For the following reasons, the trial court’s judgment will be

reversed, and the case will be remanded for further proceedings.

I. Procedural History

{¶ 2} On October 26, 2023, Dumas was charged by complaint with failing to

disclose to a law enforcement officer that she was carrying a concealed handgun. Her

trial was scheduled for December 7, 2023. On the scheduled trial date, Dumas pled

guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct. The court then immediately

proceeded to sentencing. It imposed 30 days in jail, all of which were suspended, a fine

of $250 of which $200 was suspended, and court costs. The court placed Dumas on

unsupervised community control for one year. It further ordered her firearm to be

returned to her. Dumas’s written plea form and the court’s judgment entry were filed

later that morning.

{¶ 3} Dumas appeals from her conviction. In her sole assignment of error, she

claims that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(E), making her guilty plea not

knowingly and freely given.

II. Dumas’s Guilty Plea

{¶ 4} Crim.R. 11 outlines the procedures courts must follow when accepting pleas,

and those procedures vary depending on whether the offense is a misdemeanor that is a

petty offense, a misdemeanor that is a serious offense, or a felony. State v. Howard,

2018-Ohio-5160, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). Under Crim.R. 11(E), in misdemeanor cases involving

petty offenses, such as this case, “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 -3-

of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty.”

{¶ 5} A trial court is required to inform the defendant only of the effect of the specific

plea being entered and must use the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B). State

v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 25. The notification regarding the effect of the plea is not

satisfied by statements relating to the maximum penalty and the defendant’s

constitutional rights. See id. at ¶ 22. The notification may be given either orally or in

writing. Id. at ¶ 51.

{¶ 6} Additional procedural protections in misdemeanor pleas are added in R.C.

2937.07, which states in part, “[u]pon receiving a plea of guilty, the court or magistrate

shall call for an explanation of the circumstances of the offense from the affiant or

complainant or the affiant’s or complainant’s representatives unless the offense to which

the accused is pleading is a minor misdemeanor in which case the court or magistrate is

not required to call for an explanation of the circumstances of the offense.” The State

bears the burden of ensuring that an explanation of circumstances appears on the record

before a conviction is entered. State v. Holley, 2020-Ohio-5104, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.); State v.

Schornak, 2015-Ohio-3383, ¶ 8 (2d Dist.). It is immaterial who actually states the

explanation on the record. Id. Regardless of who states the explanation of

circumstances, the record must affirmatively demonstrate that a sufficient explanation of

circumstances was made. Id. The explanation of circumstances requirement may be

waived. See, e.g., Animal Control v. Keller, 2023-Ohio-3995, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 7} Traditionally, a defendant who is challenging a plea on appeal must establish

that an error occurred in the plea hearing and that he or she was prejudiced by that error. -4-

State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 13; State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-3662, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.).

However, prejudice is presumed when the trial court completely fails to comply with a

portion of Crim.R. 11. Dangler at ¶ 15; Jackson at ¶ 9.

{¶ 8} In this case, Dumas claims that the trial court erred in accepting her guilty

plea, because it failed to notify her of the effect of her plea. A review of the plea hearing

transcript confirms that the trial court did not orally inform Dumas that her guilty plea was

a “complete admission of [her] guilt,” as required by Crim.R. 11(B). The State responds,

however, that Dumas’s “plea form along with the trial court’s questioning of the defendant

about her rights” satisfied Crim.R. 11(E).

{¶ 9} We have found substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), which

similarly requires that a felony defendant be informed of the effect of his or her plea, when

the plea form includes the required advisements and the defendant indicates at the plea

hearing that he or she has read and understood the plea form. E.g., State v. Sheppeard,

2023-Ohio-3278, ¶ 15-16 (2d Dist.); State v. Campbell, 2021-Ohio-2053, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.);

State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-478 (2d Dist.); State v. Vanover, 2007-Ohio-1057 (2d Dist.).

{¶ 10} In this case, Dumas’s plea form included the following statements: “I have

been informed by the Court of the effect of a plea of guilty, no contest and not guilty. I

understand that a plea of guilty is a complete admission of my guilt. * * * I understand that

when a plea of guilty or no contest is accepted by Court, the Court may proceed with

sentencing.”

{¶ 11} However, there was no mention of the plea form during the December 7,

2023 hearing. The trial court’s plea colloquy consisted solely of confirming that Dumas -5-

was pleading guilty to an amended charge of disorderly conduct and reviewing the

constitutional rights she was waiving and the penalties she faced. The court did not ask

her if she had read and understood the plea form. A video recording of the hearing was

attached to the transcript, but it does not provide any additional information. It is

unknown when the plea form was reviewed and signed by Dumas and her attorney.

Although the language of Dumas’s plea form would have been sufficient to provide written

notice of the effect of Dumas’s guilty plea, the record does not demonstrate that Dumas

reviewed it prior to her entering a guilty plea to disorderly conduct.

{¶ 12} Dumas’s assignment of error is sustained.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 13} The trial court’s judgment will be reversed, and the case will be remanded

for further proceedings.

TUCKER, J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.