Case Title: State v. Waddell

Citation: 1995-Ohio-31

Docket Number: 19930265

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 1995-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
OPINIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO                               
     The full texts of the opinions of the Supreme Court of                      
Ohio are being transmitted electronically beginning May 27,                      
1992, pursuant to a pilot project implemented by Chief Justice                   
Thomas J. Moyer.                                                                 
     Please call any errors to the attention of the Reporter's                   
Office of the Supreme Court of Ohio.  Attention:  Walter S.                      
Kobalka, Reporter, or Deborah J. Barrett, Administrative                         
Assistant.  Tel.:  (614) 466-4961; in Ohio 1-800-826-9010.                       
Your comments on this pilot project are also welcome.                            
     NOTE:  Corrections may be made by the Supreme Court to the                  
full texts of the opinions after they have been released                         
electronically to the public.  The reader is therefore advised                   
to check the bound volumes of Ohio St.3d published by West                       
Publishing Company for the final versions of these opinions.                     
The advance sheets to Ohio St.3d will also contain the volume                    
and page numbers where the opinions will be found in the bound                   
volumes of the Ohio Official Reports.                                            
                                                                                 
The State of Ohio, Appellant, v. Waddell, Appellee.                              
[Cite as State v. Waddell (1995),     Ohio St.3d    .]                           
Criminal procedure -- Determination whether court must consider                  
     accused's statement before accepting a no contest plea to                   
     a misdemeanor offense -- R.C. 2937.07, construed.                           
In the case of a no contest plea to a misdemeanor offense, a                     
     court may make its finding from the explanation of                          
     circumstances by the state.  The court is required to                       
     consider the accused's statement only where the plea is                     
     guilty.  (R.C. 2937.07, construed.)                                         
     (No. 93-265 -- Submitted January 24, 1995 -- Decided March                  
29, 1995.)                                                                       
     Certified by the Court of Appeals for Hocking County, No.                   
91 CA 16.                                                                        
     Brent Waddell, defendant-appellee, was cited for                            
improperly crossing a divided roadways' median, a minor                          
misdemeanor, in violation of R.C. 4511.35.  At his arraignment,                  
appellee pled no contest to the charge, and the case proceeded                   
to trial. Following the conclusion of the arresting officer's                    
statement, the court found appellee guilty.  Appellee then made                  
an unsolicited statement, which the court discounted due to                      
appellee's prior driving record. Appellee was convicted and                      
fined accordingly.  The court of appeals, in a two-to-one                        
decision, reversed the trial court. It held that R.C. 2937.07                    
requires a statement from the accused after an explanation of                    
circumstances by the state, and prior to judgment.   Finding                     
its judgment to be in conflict with the decision of the Sixth                    
District Court of Appeals in State v. Herman (1971), 31 Ohio                     
App.2d 134, 60 O.O.2d 210, 286 N.E.2d 296, and the judgment of                   
the Tenth District Court of Appeals in State v. McMillen (Mar.                   
16, 1989), Franklin App. No. 88AP-477, unreported, the                           
appellate court certified the record of the case to this court                   
for review and final determination.                                              
                                                                                 
     Charles A. Gerken, Hocking County Prosecuting Attorney,                     
and Jeffrey F. Bender, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for                       
appellant.                                                                       
                                                                                 
     Francis E. Sweeney, Sr., J. In this case we are asked to                    
determine whether a court must consider an accused's statement                   
before accepting a no contest plea to a misdemeanor offense.                     
We hold R.C. 2937.07 requires that a court need only consider                    
the explanation of circumstances by the state before it passes                   
judgment.  While a court may certainly consider a statement                      
from the accused, it is not required to do so.                                   
     To decide this issue, we are asked to construe R.C.                         
2937.07.  R.C. 2937.07 contains two paragraphs--the first                        
dealing with the procedure required by the court before                          
accepting a guilty plea in misdemeanor cases, and the second                     
detailing the necessary procedure before the court accepts a no                  
contest plea in misdemeanor cases.                                               
     The first paragraph of R.C. 2937.07 provides in part:                       
     "Upon a plea of guilty [to a misdemeanor offense] being                     
received the court or magistrate shall call for explanation of                   
circumstances of the offense from the affiant or complainant or                  
his representatives, and after hearing the same, together with                   
any statement of the accused, shall proceed to pronounce                         
sentence * * *."  (Emphasis added.)                                              
     The second paragraph of R.C. 2937.07 provides:                              
     "If the plea be 'no contest' * * * to a misdemeanor, it                     
shall constitute a stipulation that the judge or magistrate may                  
make a finding of guilty or not guilty from the explanation of                   
circumstances, and if guilt be found, impose or continue for                     
sentence accordingly * * *."  (Emphasis added.)                                  
     To properly construe this statute, we must first look at                    
the express wording of the statute.  Provident Bank v. Wood                      
(1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 65 O.O.2d 296, 304 N.E.2d 378.                        
Courts must give effect to the words of a statute and may not                    
modify an unambiguous statute by deleting words used or                          
inserting words not used.  Shover v. Cordis Corp. (1991), 61                     
Ohio St.3d 213, 218, 574 N.E.2d 457, 461.  Simply stated, "an                    
unambiguous statute means what it says."  Hakim v. Kosydar                       
(1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 161, 164, 3 O.O.3d 211, 213, 359 N.E.2d                    
1371, 1373, citing Chope v. Collins (1976), 48 Ohio St.2d 297,                   
300, 2 O.O.3d 442, 444, 358 N.E 2d 573, 575, fn. 2.                              
     In our view, the unambiguous language of R.C. 2937.07                       
clearly states that in the case of a no contest plea to a                        
misdemeanor offense, a court may make its finding from the                       
explanation of circumstances by the state. The court is                          
required to consider the accused's statement only where the                      
plea is guilty.  This is evident from the fact that the                          
"together with any statement of accused" clause in the first                     
paragraph of the statute is noticeably absent from the second                    
paragraph, which deals with no contest pleas.  Had the General                   
Assembly intended for this requirement to apply to no contest                    
pleas, then appropriate language would have been inserted in                     
the second paragraph.  Thus, according to the statute, the                       
trial court did not have to consider the accused's statement,                    
and appellee received all that the statute required.1                            
     The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and                       
appellee's conviction is reinstated.                                             
                                 Judgment reversed.                              
     Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, Pfeifer and Cook,                    
JJ., concur.                                                                     
Footnote:                                                                        
1.   In fact, by allowing appellee to make a statement,                          
appellee received more than what the statute required.