Court Opinion

ID: 9802305
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 09:03:10.780316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:23.976897
License: Public Domain

Patricia Ann Blackmon, Judge,
dissenting.
{¶ 21} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I agree that McCarthy was never arraigned or subject to a preliminary hearing during which the complaint would have been read to him. Nonetheless, immediately after accepting his plea, the court went through the list of violations with McCarthy to ascertain the status of repairs. McCarthy never argued that the violations did not exist. In fact, he was the party responsible for undertaking the repairs prior to the plea being entered. For 16 months after the plea, McCarthy engaged in conversations with the court regarding the violations and never stated that he was innocent of any of them. The only violation that McCarthy contested was the swale between the property lines; however, this was not the result of the no-*623contest plea, but was the result of an order from Building Appeals. Accordingly, under the unusual facts of this case, I do not believe that McCarthy was prejudiced by the court’s failure to formally advise him of the violations to which he pled. I would find no reversible error and affirm.