State v. Tye

2025 Ohio 587

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: February 24, 2025
• Docket: CA2024-02-021
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Tye, 2025-Ohio-587.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO

BUTLER COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO, :

Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2024-02-021

: OPINION - vs - 2/24/2025 :

HARRY M. TYE, :

Appellant. :

CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT Case No. CRB2303608

Colin P. Cochran, for appellant.

PIPER, J.

{¶ 1} Appellant, Harry M. Tye, appeals his conviction in the Hamilton Municipal

Court for one count of first-degree misdemeanor violating a protection order in violation

of R.C. 2919.27(A). For the reasons outlined below, we hereby reverse Tye's conviction

and remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

{¶ 2} On January 3, 2024, Tye appeared before the trial court with counsel for a

change of plea hearing on the above-named first-degree misdemeanor offense. During

this hearing, the following exchange between the Tye and the trial court occurred: Butler CA2024-02-021

THE COURT: [By pleading guilty, y]ou could go to jail for 180 days. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Uh-huh. Yes, sir.

THE COURT: If you plead guilty, that means you're admitting the facts. Do you understand that?

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.

THE COURT: I'm going to make a finding of guilty. I'm going to go ahead with sentencing.

The trial court then immediately proceeded to sentencing where it sentenced Tye to 180

days in jail, with 175 of those days suspended, less five days of jail-time credit, and placed

Tye on two years of community control. The trial court also ordered Tye to pay a $200

fine plus court costs.

{¶ 3} On February 12, 2024, Tye filed a notice of appeal. Following briefing, and

several months after this court found Tye's appeal was not wholly frivolous pursuant to

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Tye's appeal was submitted to this court for

consideration on February 5, 2025.1 Tye's appeal now properly before this court for

decision, Tye has raised the following single assignment of error for review.

{¶ 4} TYE'S GUILTY PLEA WAS NOT VALIDLY ENTERED AND ACCEPTED

AND MUST BE VACATED.

{¶ 5} In his single assignment of error, Tye argues the trial court erred by finding

him guilty when the record does not reflect that he ever entered a guilty plea into the

1. Although previously expressing our disappointment to the state when it unexplainedly failed to file an appellee brief, see State v. Clemmons, 2020-Ohio-5394, ¶ 12, fn. 2 (12th Dist.), the state has once again failed to file an appellee brief without explanation in this case. Pursuant to App.R. 18(C), when the state fails to file an appellee brief, such as the case here, "in determining the appeal, the court may accept the appellant's statement of the facts and issues as correct and reverse the judgment if appellant's brief reasonably appears to sustain such action." Whether to accept the appellant's statement of facts and issues as correct under these circumstances is within this court's sound discretion. State v. Ramey, 2024- Ohio-5635, ¶ 9, fn. 2 (12th Dist.). Therefore, as this court has done previously, we will exercise our discretion as provided to us by App.R. 18(C) and accept Tye's statement of facts and issues as alleged in his appellant brief in determining this appeal.

-2- Butler CA2024-02-021

record. We agree.

{¶ 6} A trial court cannot find a defendant guilty and proceed to sentencing in

circumstances where the defendant never actually entered his guilty plea into the record.

Cleveland v. Chappell, 2017-Ohio-4070, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) ("a court may not convict and

sentence a defendant where no plea has been entered upon the record"). "This holds

true even where, as here, the record indicates the defendant had the clear intention of

entering such a plea prior to the trial court making its guilt finding." State v. Muhire, 2023-

Ohio-1181, ¶ 10 (12th Dist.).

{¶ 7} The record in this case clearly demonstrates that Tye never entered a guilty

plea into the record prior to the trial court making its decision finding Tye guilty. This is

problematic because, without Tye ever actually entering a guilty plea into the record, there

was no guilty plea for the trial court to accept and no basis for the trial court's judgment

of conviction. See, e.g., State v. Keltner, 2024-Ohio-2017, ¶ 8 (12th Dist.) (finding "there

was no plea for the trial court to accept, and consequently no basis for the judgment of

conviction," where appellant never tendered a guilty plea into the record, thereby

necessitating the trial court's finding of guilt and subsequent sentence be reversed and

vacated). Therefore, finding merit to Tye's argument raised herein, Tye's single

assignment of error is sustained.

{¶ 8} Accordingly, having sustained Tye's single assignment of error, Tye's

conviction is hereby reversed and this matter is remanded to the trial court for further

proceedings.

{¶ 9} Judgment reversed and remanded.

HENDRICKSON, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.

-3-