The Eleventh District Court of Appeals overturned the OVI conviction of Angie L. Clark by the Willoughby Municipal Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals overturned the OVI conviction of Angie L. Clark by the Willoughby Municipal Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

The Eleventh District Court of Appeals reversed the convictions of a woman who had pleaded guilty to operating a vehicle under the influence of alcohol because the trial court had not properly advised her of the constitutional rights she would be waiving and other consequences of her guilty plea as required by Ohio’s criminal rules.

In a unanimous decision, written by Judge Cynthia Westcott Rice, a three-judge panel of the Eleventh District overturned the conviction of Angie L. Clark by the Willoughby Municipal Court and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On April 5, 2011, Clark was charged by citation in the City of Kirtland with OVI, having previously been convicted of one OVI offense within the last six years, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), a misdemeanor of the first degree; operating a vehicle with a prohibited blood-alcohol concentration (.248), in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(h), a misdemeanor of the first degree; and operating a vehicle with a suspended driver’s license, in violation of R.C. 4510.14, a misdemeanor of the first degree. She pleaded not guilty, and the public defender was appointed to represent her.

At a subsequent hearing, Clark pleaded guilty to a second OVI offense within six years, in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(1)(a), and the court found her guilty. At the state’s request, the remaining counts were dismissed. She was sentenced to 180 days in jail, with 165 days suspended, for a total of 15 days to be served, and she was fined $675. The 15-day sentence was ordered to be served consecutively to a 30-day sentence recently imposed against her in an unrelated case, for a total of 45 days in jail. The court placed Clark on probation for one year and granted her motion to stay the execution of sentence pending appeal.

In her appeal, Clark argued that the trial court had failed to properly advise her of all the consequences of pleading guilty as is required under Rule 11 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.

The appeals court agreed.

“The trial court failed to inform appellant of the effect of her guilty plea, as mandated by Crim. R. 11(E) and Traf.R. 10(D), and there was a complete lack of compliance with the mandates of these rules,” Judge Rice wrote. “We therefore hold that the trial court did not substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(E) and Traf.R. 10(D), and committed prejudicial error, despite the fact that appellant was represented by counsel. For the reasons stated in this opinion, it is the judgment and order of this court that the judgment of the Willoughby Municipal Court is reversed; appellant’s guilty plea is vacated; and this case is remanded to the trial court to allow appellant to either maintain her not guilty plea or to plead anew.”

The decision was joined by Judges Timothy P. Cannon and Diane V. Grendell.

State v. Clark, 2012-Ohio-3889
Opinion: http://sc.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/11/2012/2012-ohio-3889.pdf
Criminal Appeal From: Willoughby Municipal Court
Judgment: Reversed and remanded
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: August 27, 2012

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.

PDF files may be viewed, printed, and searched using the free Acrobat^® Reader
Acrobat Reader is a trademark of Adobe Systems Incorporated.