[Cite as Parma v. Hardimon, 2021-Ohio-4430.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

CITY OF PARMA, : 

 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 No. 110296 

 v. : 

 

ROMIR JEYMONTE HARDIMON, : 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: December 16, 2021 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Parma Municipal Court 

Case No. 20CRB01634 

 

Appearances: 

Timothy G. Dobeck, Parma Law Director and Chief 

Prosecutor, and Jennifer M. Meyer, Assistant Law 

Director, for appellee. 

Milton A. Kramer Law Clinic Center; Case Western 

Reserve University School of Law; Andrew S. Pollis and 

Joseph Shell, Supervising Attorneys; Gregory Hilbert, 

Paul Willison, and Alexandra L. Raleigh, Certified Legal 

Interns, for appellant. 
MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, J.: 

 Defendant-appellant Romir Jeymonte Hardimon appeals his 

conviction for misdemeanor assault and criminal damaging in the Parma Municipal 

Court. Because we find that the magistrate’s order accepting his plea in this matter 

did not conform to Crim.R. 19(D) requirements and the trial court did not hold a 

hearing on Hardimon’s presentence motion to vacate his plea, we vacate 

Hardimon’s convictions and remand this matter to allow Hardimon to file 

objections to the magistrate’s decision accepting his plea and recommending 

sentence. We further remand this matter for the trial court to conduct a hearing on 

Hardimon’s presentence motion to vacate his plea. 

I. Facts and Procedural History 

Hardimon was charged with misdemeanor assault and criminal 

damaging in the Parma Municipal Court. On September 23, 2020, he signed a 

waiver of counsel, proceeded with his case pro se, and entered a plea of guilty to the 

charges before a magistrate. On that same day, the magistrate issued a journal entry 

accepting the guilty plea and recommending a sentence. That entry was later 

amended on December 22, 2020. Neither the September 23, 2020, nor the 

amended December 22, 2020 entry signed by the magistrate contained a notice of 

the effect of a party’s failure to file objections with the trial court. 

On November 10, 2020, before the trial court had adopted the 

magistrate’s decision regarding the plea and sentence, Hardimon filed a motion to 

vacate his plea. On that same day, the magistrate filed a journal entry denying the 
motion to vacate plea without conducting a hearing. Appellant appealed that entry. 

This court dismissed that appeal because the magistrate’s order was not adopted by 

the trial court and did not become a final appealable order. 

On February 11, 2021, the trial court adopted the magistrate’s order 

that contained the entry of plea and the recommended sentence. The trial court did 

not hold a hearing upon, adopt, or rule upon the magistrate’s decision denying 

Hardimon’s motion to vacate plea. It is from the trial court’s February 11, 2021 

journal entry of conviction that Hardimon appeals. After the record was filed in this 

court by Hardimon, we allowed the city to supplement the record with a transcript 

of the September 23, 2020 joint arraignment conducted by the magistrate at which 

the magistrate provided a general announcement advising defendants of their rights 

prior to Hardimon’s individual appearance. 

II. Law and Argument 

Appellant assigns two assignments of error for our review. His first 

assignment of error provides: 

The trial court erred in accepting Mr. Hardimon’s plea without 

complying with the criminal rules applicable to plea hearings. 

The second assignment of error provides: 

The trial court erred in implicitly denying Mr. Hardimon’s 

presentence motion to withdraw his plea. 

Hardimon makes several arguments regarding the propriety of the 

procedures in the trial court regarding his plea, including the lack of a valid 

assignment of his case to the magistrate, a failure to follow Crim.R. 11 during the 
plea colloquy, as well as error in the magistrate’s filed entries. We find his argument 

that the decisions filed by the magistrate in this case failed to comply with Crim.R. 19 

to be definitive of this appeal. 

Crim.R. 19 (D)(3)(a)(iii) provides: 

A magistrate’s decision shall be in writing, identified as a magistrate’s 

decision in the caption, signed by the magistrate, filed with the clerk, 

and served by the clerk on all parties or their attorneys no later than 

three days after the decision is filed. A magistrate’s decision shall 

indicate conspicuously that a party shall not assign as error on 

appeal the court’s adoption of any factual finding or legal 

conclusion, whether or not specifically designated as a finding of fact 

or conclusion of law under Crim. R. 19(D)(3)(a)(ii), unless the party 

timely and specifically objects to that factual finding or legal 

conclusion as required by Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(b). 

(Emphasis added.) 

The entries signed by the magistrate do not comply with 

Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii) because there is no indication on the entries of the effect of 

failing to timely file objections. 

Where a magistrate’s decision does not conform with 

Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii), courts have employed varying remedies by examining the 

circumstances of each case to determine the remedy to be employed on appeal. In 

State v. Wheeler, 2016-Ohio-2964, 65 N.E.3d 182, ¶ 11-15 (2d Dist.), the court noted 

that where prejudice occurs because of the failure to conform to 

Crim.R. 19(D)(3)(a)(iii), courts either remand the matter to allow objections to be 

filed or allow an appellant to raise issues for the first time on appeal. In Wheeler, 

the court elected to address the claimed errors on appeal. Id. However, in a later 
case, the same appellate court reversed a judgment of the lower court and remanded 

the matter to allow for the filing of objections to the deficient magistrate’s decision. 

Gerken v. Barber, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2018-CA-65, 2019-Ohio-641. 

In this case, Hardimon acted pro se at the time of his plea. He was not 

informed that the failure to object to the magistrate’s decision would forfeit all but 

plain error on appeal. Further, we note that Hardimon’s counsel first appeared in 

this matter after the time for the filing of objections to the plea entry expired. 

Hardimon could not file objections to the plea procedures and was left only with the 

ability to file a motion to vacate plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1 to challenge the 

magistrate’s decision. Under these circumstances, we elect to vacate the conviction 

issued in this case and remand the matter to allow Hardimon an opportunity to file 

objections to the magistrate’s decision accepting his plea and recommending 

sentence. 

As to Hardimon’s second assignment of error, his motion to vacate 

plea was a presentence motion because the trial court had not adopted or ratified 

the magistrate’s decision accepting the plea and recommending sentence. The 

motion was denied without a hearing being held. When a presentence motion to 

withdraw plea has been filed, “‘the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine 

whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.’” 

State v. Jones, 2018-Ohio-2055, 110 N.E.3d 1049, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. 

Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992). In this case, because no hearing 

was held on the presentence motion to vacate plea either before the magistrate or 
the trial court, we sustain appellant’s second assignment of error and remand the 

matter for the trial court to conduct a hearing on Hardimon’s motion to vacate plea. 

III. Conclusion 

The magistrate’s order accepting Hardimon’s plea and recommending 

sentence did not conform to Crim.R. 19(D) because it did not contain notice of the 

consequences of failing to file a timely objection. Further, after Hardimon filed a 

presentence motion to vacate his plea, the trial court did not hold a hearing on the 

motion as required by law. Hardimon’s convictions for misdemeanor assault and 

criminal damaging in the Parma Municipal Court are vacated. We remand this 

matter to allow Hardimon to file objections to the magistrate’s decision accepting 

his plea and recommending sentence. We further remand this matter for the trial 

court to conduct a hearing on Hardimon’s presentence motion to vacate his plea. 

Judgment vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the 

municipal court to carry this judgment into execution. 
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

_____________________________ 

MICHELLE J. SHEEHAN, JUDGE 

MARY J. BOYLE, A.J., and 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR