In Ohio, there are three forms of pleading in traffic or criminal cases, guilty, not guilty and not guilty by reason of insanity. For purposes of this blog entry, I will not be discussing the third. But, the reader should be aware of the issues involved in entering a plea of guilty or no contest.
A plea of “guilty” is a complete admission of guilt, Crim.R. 11(B)(1). A plea of no contest indicates that, while you are not admitting guilt, you do not dispute the charge. In most instances, a no contest plea prevents any conviction being used in a civil action. This is most prevalent in traffic accident cases where the defendant is charged with causing the accident. By pleading no contest, the defendant can adjudicate the traffic case and prevent their plea from being used in a subsequent civil law suit for damages.
In the case of an OVI your plea takes on a much important role. The nature of your plea determines your rights on appeal. An example of this issue was illustrated in the recent case of State v. Ramsey, 2012 Ohio 134. In the case, the defendant was arrested for OVI. He filed several pre-trial motions which were all denied. Subsequently, he entered a plea guilty to a lesser and charge and then appealed the lower court’s denial of his motions.
The appellate court refused to rule on his appeal reasoning the “A plea of guilty is a complete admission of guilt...A defendant who enters a plea of guilty waives the right to appeal all nonjurisdictional issues arising at prior stages of the proceedings, although the defendant may contest the constitutionality of the plea itself. Ross v. Common Pleas Court of Auglaize Cty. (1972), 30 Ohio St.2d 323, 285 N.E.2d 25. "Thus, by entering a guilty plea, a defendant waives the right to raise on appeal the propriety of a trial court's suppression ruling." State v. McQueeney, 148 Ohio App.3d 606, 774 N.E.2d 1228, 2002 Ohio 3731, ¶13.
Therefore, once a defendant pleads guilty they waives all appealable issues other than the plea itself. Therefore, be forewarned, if your intent is to appeal the findings of the lower court, an entry of no contest will preserve that right as it is not a complete admission of guilt but merely an admission to the facts.
Those who are regular readers of this blog are very familiar with the case of State v. Homan, 89 Ohio St.3d 421, 732 N.E.2d 952. The case was a landmark as it precipitated a change in Ohio law regarding the level of compliance necessary to accept field sobriety tests (FSTs) into evidence. The case was also important as The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that probable cause to arrest may be based on other “extrinsic” evidence notwithstanding the admissibility of FSTs. While the case set forth a standard for the admissibility of FSTs (strict compliance with the standards of the NHTSA manual - subsequently reduced to substantial compliance by statute), the court also stated that probable cause to arrest exists even if FSTs are inadmissible if the arresting officer can point to other evidence of insobriety.
A perfect example of the application of Homan was set forth in Fifth Appellate District case of State v. Harlan, 2011 Ohio 6884. The defendant was stopped for failure to stay within marked lanes. The officer observed the defendant weaving back and forth several times crossing the center and side lines of the road. Upon investigation, the officer observed a strong odor of alcohol coming from the defendant’s person. The defendant admitted coming from a bar where she had consumed “a couple of “shots.” The officer performed a Horizontal Gaze Nystagmus test and found sufficient clues to warrant the arrest of the defendant.
The defendant filed a motion to suppress. The motion stated that the officer failed to administer the HGN test in substantial compliance with NHTSA standards. Additionally, the defendant claimed that without the results of the HGN test, the officer was without probable cause to arrest the defendant.
The court began its discussion by agreeing that the state failed to produce sufficient evidence to show that the officer substantially complied with NHTSA standards and suppressed the HGN test. But the court went further to state that the officer had sufficient other evidence to produce probable cause for the arrest.
The court pointed to the fact that the traffic violation by the defendant was more than a de minimus violation. In addition, the officer stated that a strong odor of alcohol was emanating from the defendant and, further, the defendant’s admission to having two “shots” and coming from a bar just prior to the stop. The court concluded these facts produced sufficient extrinsic evidence for probable cause to arrest, Homan, Supra.
