Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Long

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District

November 9, 2001

STATE OF OHIO Plaintiff-Appellee
v.
WILLIAM D. LONG Defendant-Appellant

T.C. Case No. 01-TRD-02014

DENNIS J. ADKINS, Atty. Reg. #0034488, Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellee

WILLIAM D. ROHRKASTE, Atty. Reg. #0031529, Attorney for Defendant-Appellant

OPINION

FAIN, J.

Defendant-appellant William D. Long appeals from his conviction and sentence for Driving Under Suspension, following a guilty plea. Long contends that the trial court erred in accepting his plea without first advising him of the consequences of that plea, in accordance with Crim.R. 11(E). We agree. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Reversed, and this cause is

I

Defendant-appellant William Long was arrested and charged with two counts of Driving Under Suspension, apparently based upon one act. It appears that there may have been two suspensions in effect, resulting in the two charges.

Long waived his right to counsel, appeared before the trial court, and tendered a plea of guilty. The trial court accepted the plea, after advising Long of the potential sanctions that might be imposed, and of the various rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty. However, the trial court never advised Long that the effect of his guilty plea would be a complete admission of his guilt.

After the trial court accepted Long's plea, it merged the two counts, and found him guilty of one count of Driving Under Suspension. The other count was dismissed. The trial court then afforded Long an opportunity to be heard before sentencing, following which the trial court imposed a sentence of 180 days in jail, but suspended 90 days, leaving a balance of 90 days to be served. Long was also fined $350.00 plus costs.

From his conviction and sentence, Long appeals.

II

Long's sole assignment of error is as follows:

THE COURT ERRED IN FAILING TO ADVISE THE DEFENDANT OF THE EFFECT OF HIS PLEA OF GUILTY AS REQUIRED BY CRIM.R. 11(D) OR (E).

As a preliminary matter, the parties disagree about whether Long's offense was a "serious" misdemeanor offense, concerning which Crim.R. 11(D) is applicable, or a "petty" misdemeanor offense, concerning which Crim.R. 11(E) applies. For purposes of analysis, we will assume that the State is right in asserting that the offense is a petty offense, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.