[Cite as State v. Morgan, 2014-Ohio-654.]

STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

SEVENTH DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO, 

 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, 

V. 

LEROY MORGAN, 

 DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 13 MA 80 

OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal Appeal from Youngstown 

Municipal Court of Mahoning County, 

Ohio 

Case No. 13CRB115 

JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded 

Appellant’s Plea and Conviction Vacated 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee Kathleen Thompson 

Assistant Prosecutor 

26 S. Phelps Street, 4th Floor 

Youngstown, Ohio 44503 

For Defendant-Appellant Attorney Thomas M. Lyden 

860 Boardman-Canfield Road 

Suite #204 

Youngstown, Ohio 44512 

JUDGES: 

Hon. Gene Donofrio 

Hon. Cheryl L. Waite 

Hon. Mary DeGenaro 

 

 
-2-

 Dated: February 21, 2014 
[Cite as State v. Morgan, 2014-Ohio-654.]

DONOFRIO, J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant, Leroy Morgan, appeals from a Youngstown 

Municipal Court judgment convicting him of violating a Youngstown City Ordinance 

that prohibits the unauthorized removal of scrap material, following his no contest 

plea. 

{¶2} On January 16, 2013, appellant was charged with the unauthorized 

removal of scrap from a vacant house in violation of Youngstown City Ordinance 

545.23, an unclassified misdemeanor. 

{¶3} Appellant initially entered a not guilty plea. The court appointed him 

counsel. 

{¶4} Appellant later changed his plea to no contest pursuant to a plea 

agreement and the matter was set for sentencing. The trial court sentenced 

appellant to 150 days in jail, a $500 fine, and 18 months of probation. 

{¶5} Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on May 16, 2013. The trial 

court stayed appellant’s sentence pending this appeal. 

{¶6} Appellant raises a single assignment of error that states: 

 THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING A NO CONTEST 

PLEA WITHOUT ADDRESSING DEFENDANT PERSONALLY TO 

DETERMINE THE VOLUNTARINESS OF THE PLEA AND WHETHER 

OR NOT DEFENDANT UNDERSTOOD THE NATURE OF THE 

CHARGE AND THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE PLEA. 

{¶7} Appellant states that because he had a prior conviction, the charge he 

faced carried the potential sentence of up to one year in jail. He claims the trial court 

failed to properly inform him of the implications of his plea. In fact, he claims the 

court failed to address him at all before accepting his plea. Appellant further asserts 

nothing in the record demonstrates that he understood the implications of his plea. 

He argues that the plea form did not contain a description of the effect of his plea and 

only contained misleading information regarding his possible punishment. Appellant 

states that had he understood the implications of his no contest plea, he would not 
-2-

have entered the plea. 

{¶8} Depending on the offense, Crim.R. 11 governs what information the trial 

court must inform a criminal defendant of. Misdemeanor cases involving “serious 

offenses” are governed by Crim.R. 11(D). Misdemeanor cases involving “petty 

offenses” are governed by Crim.R. 11(E). A “serious offense” includes any 

misdemeanor for which the penalty includes confinement for more than six months. 

Crim.2(C). A “petty offense” is a misdemeanor other than serious offense. Crim.R. 

2(D). 

{¶9} Appellant pleaded no contest to unauthorized removal, an unclassified 

misdemeanor. The penalties as prescribed by Youngstown City Ordinance 

545.23(e)(1) and (2) are: 

(1) Except as otherwise provided, unauthorized removal is a 

misdemeanor of the first degree. The court shall impose a mandatory 

fine of two hundred dollars ($200.00). 

 (2) If the offender has previously been convicted of unauthorized 

removal or any theft or theft-related offense, unauthorized removal is an 

unspecified misdemeanor. The court may impose a term of 

incarceration of up to one year and may impose a fine of up to two 

thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500). The court shall impose a 

mandatory minimum fee of five hundred dollars ($500.00) and shall 

impose a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of ten consecutive 

days. 

{¶10} Because appellant had a previous conviction for unauthorized removal, 

his charge was for an unclassified misdemeanor. The ordinance makes clear 

that if the offender has a previous conviction for unauthorized removal, the offense is 

an unclassified misdemeanor, as opposed to a first-degree misdemeanor. 

{¶11} “An unclassified misdemeanor is an offense which is not specifically 

labeled and for which a penalty of incarceration not exceeding one year may be 
-3-

imposed.” State v. Williams, 7th Dist. No. 01 CA 221, 2002-Ohio-5022, ¶ 16, citing 

R.C. 2901.02(F). In contrast, the maximum jail sentence for a first-degree 

misdemeanor is 180 days. R.C. 2929.24(A)(1). 

{¶12} In this case, because he was charged with an unclassified 

misdemeanor for which the possible jail time was up to one year, appellant was 

charged with a “serious offense.” Because appellant was charged with a serious 

offense, Crim.R. 11(D) governed his case. 

{¶13} Crim.R. 11(D) provides in pertinent part: 

In misdemeanor cases involving serious offenses the court may 

refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such 

plea without first addressing the defendant personally and informing the 

defendant of the effect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and not guilty

and determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily. 

(Emphasis added.) 

{¶14} While strict adherence to Crim.R. 11 is preferred, a trial court need only 

substantially comply with its requirements as long as the record reflects that under 

the totality of the circumstances, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily entered his plea by subjectively understanding the effect of the plea and 

his rights waived. State v. Bailes, 7th Dist. No. 01-CA-224, 2002-Ohio-5217, ¶10. A 

meaningful dialogue between the trial court and the defendant is required in 

misdemeanor cases where jail time is possible. Id. See also, State v. Clark, 11th 

Dist. No. 2011-Ohio-090, 2012-Ohio-3889, ¶16. 

{¶15} The plea hearing was held before a magistrate who simply asked 

appellant’s counsel for confirmation that appellant had some prior convictions and, 

therefore, the present offense was not being treated as a first offense of unauthorized 

removal. (Tr. 3). Counsel confirmed this for the magistrate. (Tr. 3). The magistrate 

then stated that the court accepted the change of plea and the matter would be set 

for sentencing. (Tr. 3). The magistrate never once addressed appellant. 
-4-

{¶16} In this case there was no dialogue, let alone a meaningful dialogue, 

between the court and appellant before the court accepted his plea. The court never 

addressed appellant and appellant never spoke. The court never informed appellant 

of the effect of his plea. And the court never took the opportunity to determine 

whether appellant was entering his plea voluntarily. Thus, there is no indication that 

the court complied in any way with Crim.R. 11(D). 

{¶17} Moreover, the plea agreement signed by appellant was misleading 

regarding the potential sentence appellant faced. 

{¶18} The plea agreement provides that appellant is entering a no contest 

plea to one count of unauthorized removal pursuant to 545.23(a). Next to the 

offense, the plea form then lists “misdemeanor 1 2 3 4 Unclass MM.” “Unclass” is 

circled on the form. 

{¶19} The plea agreement next provides: 

I further understand that said offenses are punishable pursuant to ORC 2929.24, 

29292.28 as follows: 

Classification Maximum Confinement Maximum Fine

 

Misdemeanor 1 (M1) 180 days $1000.00 

Misdemeanor 2 (M2) 90 days $750.00 

Misdemeanor 3 (M3) 60 days $500.00 

Misdemeanor 4 (M4) 30 days $250.00 

Minor Misdemeanor (MM) None $150.00 

Unclassified Misdemeanor (DUS) 500 hours community service $1000.00 

{¶20} The plea form then states that appellant could be subject to additional 

sanctions deemed appropriate by the court. 

{¶21} The plea form goes on to state that appellant’s counsel has advised him 

and he fully understands the nature of the charge against him and he is satisfied with 

his counsel. The form also represents to the court that appellant is entering his plea 
-5-

freely and voluntarily. The form is signed by appellant, his counsel, the prosecutor, 

and the magistrate. 

{¶22} Assuming appellant read the plea form, which he indicated he did by 

signing it, he would be under the mistaken belief that he was subject to a maximum 

penalty of 500 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine. Instead, he was 

actually subject to up to one year in jail. This error might be harmless if the court had 

sentenced appellant to only community service or if the court had otherwise 

addressed appellant before accepting his plea and discussed this with him. 

However, the court never addressed appellant in accepting his plea. And the court 

later sentenced appellant to 150 days in jail. 

{¶23} Based on the record before us, under the totality of the circumstances, 

there is no evidence that the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11(D). 

Accordingly, appellant’s sole assignment of error has merit. 

{¶24} For the reasons stated above, the trial court’s judgment is hereby 

reversed. Appellant’s plea and conviction are vacated and the matter is remanded to 

the trial court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with this Court’s 

opinion. 

Waite, J., concurs. 

DeGenaro, P.J., concurs.