State v. Engler

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: May 26, 2026
• Docket: 2025CA00187
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Engler, 2026-Ohio-1962.]

IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT STARK COUNTY, OHIO

STATE OF OHIO Case No. 2025CA00187

Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry

-vs- Appeal from the Massillon Municipal Court, Case No. 2025CRB01493 ANTHONY ENGLER Judgment: Reversed and Remanded Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: May 26, 2026

BEFORE: Andrew J. King; William B. Hoffman; Robert G. Montgomery, Judges

APPEARANCES: Rachael Slagle, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, The City of Massillon Law Department, for Plaintiff-Appellee; George Urban, for Defendant- Appellant.

Hoffman, J.

{¶1} Defendant-Appellant Anthony Ventura Engler appeals the judgment

entered by the Massillon Municipal Court convicting him following his plea of guilty to

criminal mischief (R.C. 2909.07(A)(1)), and sentencing him to sixty days in jail with all

but four days suspended. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE

{¶2} On June 21, 2025, Appellant followed two women to several locations in

Massillon, Ohio, recording the women. He was charged by complaint with menacing by stalking. After plea negotiations with the State, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to an

amended charge of criminal mischief.

{¶3} The trial court convicted Appellant upon his plea of guilty to criminal

mischief. Appellant was fined $100.00, and sentenced to sixty days in jail, with all but

four days suspended. Appellant was ordered to have no related offenses for a period of

five years and to continue following all orders of the Stark County Common Pleas Court

in case number 2025CR1869, including treatment.

{¶4} It is from the November 24, 2025 judgment of the trial court Appellant

prosecutes his appeal, assigning as error:

ENGLER’S GUILTY PLEA MUST BE VACATED AND REMANDED

BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL

RULE 11(E).

I.

{¶5} Appellant argues the trial court failed to comply with Crim. R. 11(E) at his

plea hearing. We agree.

{¶6} Crim. R. 11(E) provides:

In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses 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. {¶7} In the instant case, the following colloquy took place at Appellant’s change

of plea hearing:

THE COURT: Alright, before I accept your guilty plea, my bailiff is

handing you the Waiver of Rights form. Now, I did make a couple of minor

changes at the top to indicate it’s no longer the Menacing by Stalking. I put

the new code section, the new – It’s Criminal Mischief instead of Menacing

by Stalking. It’s a third-degree misdemeanor, not a first-degree, so change

what you’re actually pleading to. Anthony, is that your signature at the

bottom of that form?

MR. ENGLER: Yes, Your Honor.

THE COURT: Did your attorney explain the form to you?

THE COURT: Do you understand the form?

THE COURT: Do you have any questions about the form?

MR. ENGLER: Uh, no, Your Honor.

Tr. 3-4.

{¶8} At this point, the trial court accepted Appellant’s plea and found Appellant

guilty. The plea form signed by Appellant acknowledged he was waiving the right to trial

by jury or to the court, the right to confront witnesses, the right to call witnesses, the right

to be presumed innocent and to require the prosecution to prove his guilt, the right to

testify or not testify on his own behalf, and the right to have the prosecution and court refrain from comment on his failure to testify. He acknowledged no promises or threats

had been made by anyone, and acknowledged he understands upon acceptance of the plea

the court may proceed immediately to sentencing.

{¶9} In State v. Huffman, 2024-Ohio-5273 (5th Dist.), the defendant pled guilty

and no contest to misdemeanor charges following plea negotiations. At the plea hearing,

Huffman’s attorney indicated he was going to enter the pleas according to the plea

agreement. The trial court accepted the pleas without any colloquy with Appellant. The

rights form signed by Huffman indicated only a waiver of the right to a jury trial. This

Court held the trial court’s failure to comply with Crim. R. 11(E) constituted a complete

failure on the part of the trial court, and thus, pursuant to the Ohio Supreme Court’s

holding in State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, Huffman was not required to demonstrate

prejudice. Huffman at ¶ 14.

{¶10} The State attempts to distinguish Huffman, arguing in the instant case, the

trial court did ensure Appellant understood the rights he was waiving as set forth on the

plea form. However, Crim. R. 11(E) affirmatively requires the court to inform the

defendant of the effect of the plea. In order to fulfill the requirement of informing a

defendant of "the effect of the plea" before accepting a guilty plea to a petty misdemeanor,

the court is required to inform the defendant the plea is a complete admission of guilt.

State v. Jackson, 2022-Ohio-3662, ¶ 8. In the instant case, as in Jackson, neither the

colloquy nor the plea form informed Appellant of the effect of a guilty plea as required by

Crim. R. 11(E). The plea form set forth the rights Appellant was waiving by entering a

plea of guilty but did not inform Appellant the effect of a plea of guilty is a complete

admission of guilt. See Crim. R. 11(B)(1). Nothing in either the plea form or in the trial

court’s colloquy during the plea hearing informed Appellant of the effect of a plea of guilty. {¶11} We find the trial court completely failed to inform Appellant of the effect of

a guilty plea in violation of Crim. R. 11(E). Pursuant to Huffman, supra, and Dangler,

supra, Appellant is not required to demonstrate prejudice.

{¶12} The assignment of error is sustained. The plea of guilty is vacated, and this

case is remanded to the Massillon Municipal Court for further proceedings according to

law, consistent with this opinion.

{¶13} Costs are waived.

By: Hoffman, J.

King, P.J. and

Montgomery, J. concur.