Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2016 TRC
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Paul A. Mancino, Jr. Mancino, Mancino
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Barbara Langhenry Director of Law City
of Cleveland By: Marco A. Tanudra Kimberly G. Barnett-Mills
Assistant City Prosecutors.
BEFORE: Blackmon, J., McCormack, P.J., and E.T. Gallagher, J.
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, JUDGE.
Anton McCall ("McCall") appeals from the trial
court's acceptance of his no contest plea to operating a
vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs
("OVI") and assigns the following errors for our
I. Defendant was denied due process of law when the court
failed to explain to defendant the effect of a plea of no
II. Defendant was denied due process of law when the court
sentenced defendant without affording defendant his right of
The city of Cleveland, pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B), has
conceded McCall's first assigned error. Our review of the
record confirms that the no contest plea was not knowingly
and voluntarily made, and therefore, we reverse McCall's
conviction and remand the matter to the trial court for
On April 19, 2016, Cleveland police officers pulled McCall
over for speeding. It appeared to the officers that McCall
was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. McCall submitted
to a urine test, and it was positive for marijuana and
cocaine. McCall was charged with OVI in violation of R.C.
On July 26, 2016, the court held a hearing at which it
accepted McCall's no contest plea. On August 16, 2016,
the court sentenced McCall to 180 days in jail with 150 days
suspended, a fine, probation, driver's license
suspension, random substance abuse testing, assessment, and
counseling, and court costs, among other things. It is from
this plea and sentence that McCall appeals.
TrafR. 10(B)(2) states that the effect of a no contest plea
is as follows: "The plea of no contest is not an
admission of defendant's guilt, but is an admission of
the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint and such plea
or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any
subsequent civil or criminal proceeding." Pursuant to
TrafR. 10(C), the court shall not accept a no contest plea
"without first addressing the defendant personally and
informing him of the effect of the [no contest plea] and
determining that he is making the plea voluntarily."
See also Crim.R. 11(D).
In the instant case, the court explained the penalties McCall
faced and certain constitutional rights McCall gave up by
entering a no contest plea. The court then asked McCall if he
understood this and if he still wished to plead no contest.
However, the court failed to inform McCall of the effects of
a no contest plea. See State v. Jones, 116 Ohio
St.3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 23
("Thus, for a no contest plea, a defendant must be
informed that the plea of no contest is not an admission of
guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged
in the complaint, and that the plea or admission shall not be
used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or
We find that McCall's plea was not knowingly,
voluntarily, and intelligently made, and the court erred by
accepting it. McCall's first assigned error is sustained.