[Cite as State v. Pratt, 2025-Ohio-2611.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-1 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 24CRB645 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) JAMES W. PRATT : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellant : OPINION :
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 25, 2025, the judgment of the
trial court is vacated.
Costs to be paid by the State.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
[[Applied Signature]] RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE
Epley, P.J., and Huffman, J., concur. -2- OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-1
CATHY J. WEITHMAN, Attorney for Appellant MARK M. FEINSTEIN, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant James W. Pratt appeals from his conviction in the
Champaign County Municipal Court following his no contest plea to one count of permitting
an animal to run at large. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be
vacated.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On December 11, 2024, Pratt received a summons and complaint alleging that
he had permitted his cattle to run at large, in violation of R.C. 951.02, a misdemeanor of the
fourth degree. According to the complaint, Pratt permitted his cattle to enter State Route
56, causing them to be struck by two vehicles.
{¶ 3} On December 16, 2024, Pratt appeared for his arraignment at the Champaign
County Municipal Court. Pratt waived his right to counsel and entered a no contest plea.
The State read a statement of circumstances into the record, and the trial court found Pratt
guilty. The trial court sentenced Pratt to 10 days in jail, all of which was suspended on the
condition that he not commit any similar offenses within one year. The trial court also
imposed a fine of $125 and court costs. Pratt timely appealed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Pratt raises a single assignment of error, which states as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 951.02 AS THE REQUISITE -3- DEGREE OF CULPABILITY WAS NOT PROVEN.
{¶ 5} According to Pratt, the State failed to prove that he recklessly violated the
statute. The State did not file a brief.
{¶ 6} “Pursuant to R.C. 2937.07, the trial court in a misdemeanor case is required to
hear an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the offense and then determine
whether the facts are sufficient to convict on the misdemeanor offense.” State v. Fields,
2017-Ohio-400, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal,
an appellate court must “examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such
evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus. “The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. A defendant who pleads
no contest has a substantive right to be acquitted if the State’s explanation of the facts and
circumstances fails to establish all of the elements of the offense. Cuyahoga Falls v.
Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 150 (1984), citing Springdale v. Hubbard, 52 Ohio App.2d 255,
259-260 (1st Dist. 1977).
{¶ 7} “Appellate review of a trial court's finding of guilt on a no contest plea to a
misdemeanor is de novo: We review the explanation of circumstances to determine if there
is sufficient evidence in the record to establish all of the elements of the offense.” State v.
Erskine, 2015-Ohio-710, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Bowers at 150. Accord State v. Hanson,
2019-Ohio-3688, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). “De novo review requires a court to exercise its
independent judgment.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 16, citing Lincoln Properties,
Inc. v. Goldslager, 18 Ohio St.2d 154, 159 (1969). -4- {¶ 8} Pratt was charged with one count of animals at large pursuant to R.C. 951.02.
That statute provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o person, who is the owner or keeper of . . .
cattle . . ., shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley
. . . .” Although there is no degree of culpability specified in the statute above, R.C. 951.99
provides that “[w]hoever recklessly violates section 951.02 of the Revised Code is guilty of
a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.” Thus, “[f]or the offense to carry criminal liability, the
offender must have ‘recklessly violated section 951.02 of the Revised Code.’ ” State v.
Schornak, 2015-Ohio-3383, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.), quoting R.C. 951.99.
{¶ 9} Recklessly is defined in R.C. 2901.22(C), which states:
A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the
consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
the person's conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a
certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with
heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.
{¶ 10} At the time of Pratt’s plea, the prosecutor read into the record the written
statement of facts, which had previously been filed with the court. The prosecutor stated:
Per the Court’s statement filed in this case, this matter occurred on
December 11, 2024 at approximately 18:06 hours. At that time Deputy
Robert Moore with the Champaign County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to
3985 State Route 56 in Champaign County, Ohio in regards to a vehicle
striking a cow in the roadway.
Prior to his arrival, Mr. Pratt, the gentleman that signed the documents and
who is seated to my right, was the owner of the cattle. That there were -5- multiple calls regarding cows being in the roadway. Upon arrival, Deputy
Moore came in contact with a male who stated that the cow belonged to him.
He was later identified as James Pratt. I located the driver of the vehicle.
Deputy North did. Did not see any cattle in or near the roadway.
While dealing with the initial vehicle information, another vehicle struck a
cow in the roadway. While speaking to Mr. Pratt, Deputy North learned, and
was told by Mr. Pratt, that the cattle busted out of his barn at that time. They
knocked down the fence. And that was the basis for the charge.
Tr. 6.
{¶ 11} The trial court then had a brief discussion with Pratt wherein he stated that he
“didn’t mean to have [his] cows get out” and that the cows “broke through a gate and got out
of the barn.” Id. at 7. Thereafter, the trial court found Pratt guilty as charged.
{¶ 12} According to Pratt, there was no evidence presented to the court that he acted
recklessly, which was a necessary element of the offense. We agree.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Pratt, 2025-Ohio-2611.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT CHAMPAIGN COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO : : C.A. No. 2025-CA-1 Appellee : : Trial Court Case No. 24CRB645 v. : : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court) JAMES W. PRATT : : FINAL JUDGMENT ENTRY & Appellant : OPINION :
...........
Pursuant to the opinion of this court rendered on July 25, 2025, the judgment of the
trial court is vacated.
Costs to be paid by the State.
Pursuant to Ohio App.R. 30(A), the clerk of the court of appeals shall immediately
serve notice of this judgment upon all parties and make a note in the docket of the service.
Additionally, pursuant to App.R. 27, the clerk of the court of appeals shall send a certified
copy of this judgment, which constitutes a mandate, to the clerk of the trial court and note
the service on the appellate docket.
For the court,
[[Applied Signature]] RONALD C. LEWIS, JUDGE
Epley, P.J., and Huffman, J., concur. -2- OPINION CHAMPAIGN C.A. No. 2025-CA-1
CATHY J. WEITHMAN, Attorney for Appellant MARK M. FEINSTEIN, Attorney for Appellee
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant James W. Pratt appeals from his conviction in the
Champaign County Municipal Court following his no contest plea to one count of permitting
an animal to run at large. For the following reasons, the judgment of the trial court will be
vacated.
I. Facts and Procedural History
{¶ 2} On December 11, 2024, Pratt received a summons and complaint alleging that
he had permitted his cattle to run at large, in violation of R.C. 951.02, a misdemeanor of the
fourth degree. According to the complaint, Pratt permitted his cattle to enter State Route
56, causing them to be struck by two vehicles.
{¶ 3} On December 16, 2024, Pratt appeared for his arraignment at the Champaign
County Municipal Court. Pratt waived his right to counsel and entered a no contest plea.
The State read a statement of circumstances into the record, and the trial court found Pratt
guilty. The trial court sentenced Pratt to 10 days in jail, all of which was suspended on the
condition that he not commit any similar offenses within one year. The trial court also
imposed a fine of $125 and court costs. Pratt timely appealed.
II. Assignment of Error
{¶ 4} Pratt raises a single assignment of error, which states as follows:
THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN FINDING DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
GUILTY OF A VIOLATION OF SECTION 951.02 AS THE REQUISITE -3- DEGREE OF CULPABILITY WAS NOT PROVEN.
{¶ 5} According to Pratt, the State failed to prove that he recklessly violated the
statute. The State did not file a brief.
{¶ 6} “Pursuant to R.C. 2937.07, the trial court in a misdemeanor case is required to
hear an explanation of the circumstances surrounding the offense and then determine
whether the facts are sufficient to convict on the misdemeanor offense.” State v. Fields,
2017-Ohio-400, ¶ 27 (2d Dist.). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal,
an appellate court must “examine the evidence admitted at trial to determine whether such
evidence, if believed, would convince the average mind of the defendant's guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.” State v. Jenks, 61 Ohio St.3d 259 (1991), paragraph two of the
syllabus. “The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence in a light most
favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential
elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. A defendant who pleads
no contest has a substantive right to be acquitted if the State’s explanation of the facts and
circumstances fails to establish all of the elements of the offense. Cuyahoga Falls v.
Bowers, 9 Ohio St.3d 148, 150 (1984), citing Springdale v. Hubbard, 52 Ohio App.2d 255,
259-260 (1st Dist. 1977).
{¶ 7} “Appellate review of a trial court's finding of guilt on a no contest plea to a
misdemeanor is de novo: We review the explanation of circumstances to determine if there
is sufficient evidence in the record to establish all of the elements of the offense.” State v.
Erskine, 2015-Ohio-710, ¶ 10 (4th Dist.), citing Bowers at 150. Accord State v. Hanson,
2019-Ohio-3688, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.). “De novo review requires a court to exercise its
independent judgment.” State v. Gwynne, 2023-Ohio-3851, 16, citing Lincoln Properties,
Inc. v. Goldslager, 18 Ohio St.2d 154, 159 (1969). -4- {¶ 8} Pratt was charged with one count of animals at large pursuant to R.C. 951.02.
That statute provides, in relevant part, that “[n]o person, who is the owner or keeper of . . .
cattle . . ., shall permit them to run at large in the public road, highway, street, lane, or alley
. . . .” Although there is no degree of culpability specified in the statute above, R.C. 951.99
provides that “[w]hoever recklessly violates section 951.02 of the Revised Code is guilty of
a misdemeanor of the fourth degree.” Thus, “[f]or the offense to carry criminal liability, the
offender must have ‘recklessly violated section 951.02 of the Revised Code.’ ” State v.
Schornak, 2015-Ohio-3383, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.), quoting R.C. 951.99.
{¶ 9} Recklessly is defined in R.C. 2901.22(C), which states:
A person acts recklessly when, with heedless indifference to the
consequences, the person disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
the person's conduct is likely to cause a certain result or is likely to be of a
certain nature. A person is reckless with respect to circumstances when, with
heedless indifference to the consequences, the person disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that such circumstances are likely to exist.
{¶ 10} At the time of Pratt’s plea, the prosecutor read into the record the written
statement of facts, which had previously been filed with the court. The prosecutor stated:
Per the Court’s statement filed in this case, this matter occurred on
December 11, 2024 at approximately 18:06 hours. At that time Deputy
Robert Moore with the Champaign County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to
3985 State Route 56 in Champaign County, Ohio in regards to a vehicle
striking a cow in the roadway.
Prior to his arrival, Mr. Pratt, the gentleman that signed the documents and
who is seated to my right, was the owner of the cattle. That there were -5- multiple calls regarding cows being in the roadway. Upon arrival, Deputy
Moore came in contact with a male who stated that the cow belonged to him.
He was later identified as James Pratt. I located the driver of the vehicle.
Deputy North did. Did not see any cattle in or near the roadway.
While dealing with the initial vehicle information, another vehicle struck a
cow in the roadway. While speaking to Mr. Pratt, Deputy North learned, and
was told by Mr. Pratt, that the cattle busted out of his barn at that time. They
knocked down the fence. And that was the basis for the charge.
Tr. 6.
{¶ 11} The trial court then had a brief discussion with Pratt wherein he stated that he
“didn’t mean to have [his] cows get out” and that the cows “broke through a gate and got out
of the barn.” Id. at 7. Thereafter, the trial court found Pratt guilty as charged.
{¶ 12} According to Pratt, there was no evidence presented to the court that he acted
recklessly, which was a necessary element of the offense. We agree.
{¶ 13} Our prior decision in Schornak, 2015-Ohio-3383 (2d Dist.), is instructive.
There, police were dispatched to a roadway in Greene County, Ohio, where 15 head of cattle
owned by Schornak were found in and around the roadway, as well as in a nearby soybean
field. Id. at ¶ 16. Schornak was charged with 15 counts of animals at large. Schornak
entered a no contest plea to one count of animals at large, and the State agreed to dismiss
the remaining counts. Id. at ¶ 2. The trial court found Schornak guilty and sentenced him.
Schornak appealed.
{¶ 14} One of the issues Schornak raised on appeal was that the evidence reviewed
by the trial court for finding him guilty on his no contest plea was insufficient to sustain a
conviction because there was no evidence of recklessness. Id. at ¶ 15. The information -6- upon which the trial court relied for Schornak’s no contest plea reflected that the owners of
the soybean field had had ongoing problems with Schornak’s cattle running loose on their
property. Additionally, Schornak had been asked to fix his fence multiple times prior to the
date of the incident for which he was charged, but he had refused to do so. Furthermore,
at the plea hearing, Schornak admitted there was a hole in his fence. Id. at ¶ 16. Based
on these facts, we concluded on appeal that the facts satisfied all the elements to support
Schornak’s conviction for animals at large. Specifically, we stated that “Schornak’s
recklessness is established by his failure to repair the hole in his fence despite repeated
problems with his cattle escaping and multiple requests for him to make the necessary
repairs.” Id. at ¶ 17.
{¶ 15} In this case, there was no dispute that the cattle running at large in the roadway
belonged to Pratt. However, there was no evidence presented at the plea hearing that Pratt
had failed to maintain his barn or fence in good repair or that he had been aware of damage
but refused to fix it, resulting in his animals escaping. Nor was there any evidence
presented that Pratt’s cattle had previously escaped. Rather, the evidence reflected that
Pratt’s cows “busted out of his barn” or “broke through a gate and got out of the barn.” This
evidence was insufficient to satisfy the reckless standard.
{¶ 16} While the prosecutor advised the trial court that Pratt had a prior animal
running at large conviction from 2023, this was stated after Pratt had been found guilty when
the trial court was imposing sentence. Moreover, there were no additional details provided
regarding the prior conviction to support an inference that Pratt had acted recklessly in this
case. Notably, R.C. 2937.07 provides that “the judge or magistrate may make a finding of
guilty or not guilty from the explanation of the circumstances of the offense.” Because this
information was not provided as part of the explanation of the circumstances, it may not be -7- used to satisfy the mens rea element of recklessness.
{¶ 17} Pratt’s assignment of error is sustained.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 18} Having sustained the assignment of error, we vacate the judgment of the trial
court.
.............
EPLEY, P.J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.