Court Opinion

ID: 9910549
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-15 20:07:45.543544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:53:09.927504
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Nunley, 2023-Ohio-4577.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                                SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                     LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio/City of Toledo                            Court of Appeals No. L-23-1136

        Appellee                                        Trial Court No. TRC-22-09124

v.

Karl Nunley                                             DECISION AND JUDGMENT

        Appellant                                       Decided: December 15, 2023

                                                  *****

        Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and
        Jimmie Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

        Anthony J. Richardson, II, for appellant.

                                                  *****

        ZMUDA, J.

                                             I.   Introduction

        {¶ 1} Appellant, Karl Nunley, appeals the May 10, 2023 judgment of the Toledo

Municipal Court, finding him guilty of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of

alcohol in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a). Appellant argues that his no contest plea
to the underlying charge was not made knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily, because

the trial court failed to comply with Traf.R. 10 when it accepted his no contest plea. The

state concedes that the trial court erred. Having reviewed the record, we find that the trial

court committed error in accepting appellant’s plea and we reverse the trial court’s

judgment.

                        II.    Facts and Procedural Background

       {¶ 2} On June 23, 2022, appellant was operating a vehicle on a public roadway in

Lucas County, Ohio. He was pulled over on suspicion of operating a vehicle while

intoxicated and ultimately arrested. He was charged with refusing to submit to chemical

tests to determine whether he was operating a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of

R.C. 4511.19(A)(2)(b), a first-degree misdemeanor; maintaining physical control of a

vehicle while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 4511.194, a first-degree misdemeanor; and

for failing to register his vehicle in violation of R.C. 4503.11, a minor misdemeanor. He

was released the following day on a personal recognizance bond. He appeared for his

arraignment on June 19, 2022, and entered a not guilty plea to each offense.

       {¶ 3} Following negotiations with the state, appellant appeared for a change of

plea hearing on January 24, 2023. At that time, the state informed the trial court that it

had agreed to move for amendment of the refusal to submit to chemical test offense to a

charge of operating a vehicle while intoxicated in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a).

The state also agreed to seek dismissal the remaining counts in exchange for appellant’s

2.
entry of a no contest plea to the amended charge. Appellant’s counsel confirmed that this

was his understanding of the plea agreement. The trial court then engaged in a lengthy

discussion of appellant’s mental and physical health, appellant’s wife’s mental health as

it related to her dealing with appellant’s health issues, and the logistics of appellant

continuing to work while also attending counseling for alcohol abuse that may be ordered

upon his conviction. At no time during the change of plea hearing did the trial court elicit

an actual plea from appellant, engage in any plea colloquy with appellant to advise him of

the rights he would be waiving by entering a plea, or advise appellant of the effect of

entering a plea. Further, the trial court never announced a guilty verdict based on the

purportedly entered no contest plea. Nevertheless, the trial court set a sentencing hearing

for May 10, 2023.

       {¶ 4} At sentencing, the trial court again engaged in significant discussion of

appellant’s mental and physical health as well as appellant’s wife’s mental health. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the trial court, without reference to any prior guilty finding,

sentenced appellant to a 6-month jail term, with all but 5 mandatory days suspended. It

also imposed 18 days of electronic monitoring following his service of the 5-day jail

term, imposed one year of active probation, a seven-year license suspension with

privileges for attending work, and a $525 fine plus court costs. Appellant’s sentence was

memorialized later that same day. The judgment entry reflected a guilty finding on the

3.
amended operating a vehicle while intoxicated offense based on appellant’s entry of a no

contest plea on January 24, 2023, despite the fact that no plea had ever been entered.

                                III.    Assignments of Error

       {¶ 5} Appellant timely appealed and assigns the following errors for our review:

                 1. Reversal is proper where trial court failed to offer appellant

       colloquy required by Traf.R. 10 before his plea.

                 2. Reversal is proper where trial court failed to offer allocution.

                 3. Reversal is proper where appellant did not make a knowing,

       intelligent plea.

                 4. Reversal is proper where trial court did not request explanation

       of circumstances.

                 5. Reversal is proper where trial counsel failed to give sound

       advice.

                                  IV.    Law and Analysis

       {¶ 6} Appellant’s first and third assignments of error allege that the trial court

erred in accepting his no contest plea. Because our resolution of these assignments is

dispositive of the appeal, we address them first.

       {¶ 7} In his first assignment of error, appellant argues that the trial court erred

when it failed to complete the plea colloquy required under Traf.R. 10(D) by not

informing him of the effect of his plea as described in Traf.R. 10(B). In his third

4.
assignment of error, appellant argues that his plea was not made knowingly, intelligently,

or voluntarily because the trial court failed to provide that information. In its brief, the

state concedes that the trial court erred in accepting appellant’s plea.1 We agree.

       {¶ 8} To accept appellant’s no contest plea to his violation of R.C.

4511.19(A)(1)(a), the trial court was obligated to comply with Traf.R. 10(D). Toledo v.

Blackshear, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1092, 2020-Ohio-1233, ¶ 26. Traf.R. 10(D) states

that the trial court cannot accept a no contest plea “without first informing the defendant

of the effect of the plea.” Id. Trial courts comply with this requirement by “informing

the defendant of the applicable information in Traf.R. 10(B).” Id. Traf.R. 10(B) defines

the effect of a no contest plea as “not an admission of the defendant’s guilt, but * * * 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.”

       {¶ 9} Here, as the state concedes, the record shows that the trial court failed to

advise appellant of the effect of his no contest plea. Moreover, the state concedes, and

we agree, that the record shows that the trial court failed to conduct any plea colloquy

that would confirm that appellant’s plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily. The trial court’s complete lack of colloquy advising him of the loss of

1
 The state conceded reversible error as to appellant’s first, second, third, and fourth
assignments of error. The state does not concede error as to appellant’s fifth assignment
of error.

5.
certain constitutional rights renders his plea invalid. See State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d

239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25.

       {¶ 10} Put simply, the trial court failed to give appellant any advisements that

would show that it complied with Traf.R. 10(D) at the change of plea hearing or allow

this court to determine whether appellant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily. As a result, we find his first and third assignments of error well-taken.

Because our finding on these assigned errors is dispositive of this appeal, we find

appellant’s second, fourth, and fifth assignments of error are moot and, therefore, we

decline to address them pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).

                                    V.      Conclusion

       {¶ 11} For these reasons, we find appellant’s first and third assignments of error

well-taken and we reverse the May 10, 2023 judgment of the Toledo Municipal Court.

We remand this matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

       {¶ 12} The state is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal pursuant to App.R. 24.

                                                                         Judgment reversed,
                                                                             and remanded.

       A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

6.
                                                               State of Ohio/City of Toledo
                                                                             v. Karl Nunley
                                                                                 L-23-1136

Thomas J. Osowik, J.                             ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE
Gene A. Zmuda, J.
                                                 ____________________________
Charles E. Sulek, J.                                     JUDGE
CONCUR.
                                                 ____________________________
                                                         JUDGE

          This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
     Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
          version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
                   http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

7.