Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Appeal from the Cleveland Municipal Court Case No. 2016 CRB
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Mark Stanton Cuyahoga County Public
Defender BY: John T. Martin Assistant Public Defender
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Barbara A. Langhenry Law Director City
of Cleveland BY: Kimberley G. Barnett-Mills Chief Assistant
City Prosecutor BY: Karyn J. Lynn Assistant City Prosecutor.
BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., E.A. Gallagher, A.J., and Boyle,
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE.
Defendant-appellant, Donald Edwards, appeals his conviction
of violating a temporary protection order and assigns one
error for review:
Mr. Edwards's guilty plea was not validly entered and
accepted, and must be vacated.
We find merit to the appeal and reverse the trial court's
Facts and Procedural History
Edwards was charged in the Cleveland Municipal Court with
violating a temporary protection order in violation of R.C.
2919.27. On the scheduled trial date, the prosecutor
requested a continuance of the trial. Edwards, who had been
in jail for almost two months by that time, asked to be
released on bond. In the midst of the discussion on the bond
issue, Edwards exclaimed: "I'll take the deal."
(Tr. 15.) In response to the court's inquiry regarding
the deal, the prosecutor advised that Edwards would plead to
one count of violating a temporary protection order, and the
city would agree to dismiss the charges in a separate case
arising from the same incident.
Upon questioning, Edwards indicated to the court that he
wished to enter a plea because he wanted to resolve the case.
The court then advised Edwards that he would be sentenced at
a later date and released Edwards from jail on bond. Edwards
was later sentenced to two years of inactive community
control and placed on the mental-health docket. Edwards now
appeals his conviction.
Law and Analysis
In his sole assignment of error, Edwards argues his no
contest plea should be vacated because the trial court
failed to advise him of the effect of his plea in violation
of Crim.R. 11. He also asserts that he never actually entered
Crim.R. 11 sets forth certain constitutional and procedural
requirements with which a trial court must comply prior to
accepting a guilty or no contest plea in order to ensure that
a defendant enters a guilty or no contest plea knowingly,
intelligently, and voluntarily. State v. Engle, 74
Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). Whether the trial
court accepted a plea in compliance with ...