State v. Pullie

[Cite as State v. Pullie, 2026-Ohio-3717.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COLUMBIANA COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JAMAAR C. PULLIE, Defendant-Appellant. OPINION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY Case No. 26 CO 0011 Criminal Appeal from the Columbiana County Municipal Court of Columbiana County, Ohio Case No. 2025-CRB-1086 BEFORE: Katelyn Dickey, Cheryl L. Waite, Carol Ann Robb, Judges. JUDGMENT: Affirmed. Atty. Vito J. Abruzzino, Columbiana County Prosecutor and Atty. Ralph M. Rivera, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee and Atty. Charles C. Amato, Amato Law Office, L.P.A., for Defendant-Appellant. Dated: September 21, 2026  –2– DICKEY, J. {¶1} Appellant, Jamaar C. Pullie, appeals from the March 6, 2026 judgment of the Columbiana County Municipal Court denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea following a hearing. On appeal, Appellant asserts the trial court erred in failing to correct a manifest injustice by denying his motion. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY {¶2} On August 5, 2025, Appellant was charged with three counts of assault, misdemeanors of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). On October 20, 2025, Appellant appeared at his arraignment without counsel and pled no contest to all three counts. {¶3} The trial court advised Appellant that the charges carry a maximum penalty of up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000. The court further advised Appellant that he was entitled to a jury trial and to counsel. When asked what plea he wished to enter, Appellant stated, “No contest.” (10/20/2025 Arraignment/No Contest Plea Tr., p. 2). The court asked Appellant if he understood that a no contest plea would waive all of the trial rights the court had reviewed with him, including his right to trial and his right to consult with an attorney. Appellant answered, “Yes, Your Honor.” (Id. at p. 3). The court then directed Appellant to review and sign waivers reflecting that he understood he was giving up his constitutional rights. Following a pause in the proceedings, the court stated it was in receipt of a waiver of rights upon plea and a waiver of counsel, and again asked Appellant for his plea. Appellant reaffirmed, “No contest, Your Honor[,]” and the court accepted his plea. (Id. at p. 3). {¶4} In addition to the oral advisements and waivers, Appellant also waived his rights in writing. Specifically, the written “Waiver of Rights Upon Plea,” signed by Appellant, sets forth Appellant’s understanding that he waives all of his constitutional rights. The written waiver further reveals: I state that no promises or threats have been made to cause me to enter my plea, except for such representations which have been made on Case No. 26 CO 0011  –3– the record in open court, and that I enter my plea after being fully advised of the potential penalties that I face and the effect of entering a plea of Guilty or No Contest. If I enter a plea of No Contest, I agree that the Judge shall consider the ticket of the complaint and affidavit. I also acknowledge that a plea of No Contest is not an admission of guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint or citation, and that such a plea or admission may not be used against me in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. I also waive any further explanation of circumstances and I stipulate (agree) to a finding of guilty by the Judge. (10/20/2025 Waiver of Rights Upon Plea). {¶5} The written “Waiver of Counsel,” signed by Appellant, states: I understand that I have the right to be represented by counsel/attorney in this matter and that, if the court determines that I am unable to pay the cost of hiring counsel, the court will appoint counsel to represent me without charge. With full understanding of my right to be represented by counsel, and having been fully advised of the potential penalty in this matter, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive (give-up) my right to employ or have one appointed to represent me in connection with these proceedings. (10/20/2025 Waiver of Counsel). {¶6} Before disposition, the trial court asked Appellant whether there was anything he wished to say. Appellant admitted to the criminal conduct, stated he had spoken with the individuals in the case, and apologized for his actions. Appellant characterized the events as “a mistake[.]” (10/20/2025 Arraignment/No Contest Plea Tr., p. 4). Appellant claimed he did not fight anyone. Appellant indicated he “did put hands on people[,]” and “pushed somebody[,]” but said he did not escalate any violence and left. (Id.) Case No. 26 CO 0011  –4– {¶7} Upon Appellant’s no contest plea, the trial court found him guilty. The court set bond at $2,500, ordered Appellant to have no contact with any of the alleged victims, and deferred sentencing. {¶8} On January 28, 2026, Appellant appeared at his sentencing hearing without counsel. The victims were notified but did not appear. The trial court concurrently sentenced Appellant to 180 days in jail, with 120 days suspended, on each of the three counts of assault. Appellant was also sentenced to a two-year period of probation. {¶9} Later that same date, Appellant, through obtained counsel, filed a “Motion to Set Aside Plea” for the following reasons: “1. The Defendant plead without the advice of counsel; 2. The Defendant did not understand the severity of the charge; 3. The Defendant has a full-time job.” (1/28/2026 Motion to Set Aside Plea). {¶10} A hearing on Appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea was held on February 18, 2026. Appellant appeared with counsel. Appellee, the State of Ohio, was represented by the assistant prosecutor. {¶11} Regarding the defense’s position, counsel argued Appellant’s no contest plea should be set aside because Appellant entered it without the advice of counsel and Appellant did not and does not understand the severity of the charges. Defense counsel emphasized Appellant holds a full-time job and does not fully appreciate the consequences of the plea. {¶12} Appellant testified he did not consult an attorney before entering his no contest plea and has no legal background or training. Appellant said he understood no contest to be something less than a guilty plea and did not believe it would result in a guilty disposition. He claimed that because the alleged victims had not appeared at prior court dates, he assumed the case would be dismissed. He said he was caught off guard that the charges carried potential jail time and did not understand the severity of a first- degree misdemeanor. Appellant also stated he could not afford a lawyer. {¶13} Regarding the State’s position, it did not affirmatively object to Appellant’s motion. The prosecutor stated she deferred to the trial court’s discretion as to whether to permit withdrawal of Appellant’s no contest plea. {¶14} The trial court conducted its own inquiry of Appellant and, reviewing the case file, established the following: Appellant signed both a waiver of rights upon plea Case No. 26 CO 0011  –5– and a separate waiver of counsel, and confirmed the signatures were his; at the arraignment, Appellant was orally informed of the maximum penalty for each first-degree misdemeanor and of the rights he was waiving by pleading no contest; Appellant was advised of his right to appointed counsel if he could not afford an attorney and indicated jail time was possible; Appellant acknowledged understanding that three pleas were available at arraignment — guilty, not guilty, and no contest; Appellant confirmed no one threatened him and that he was not under duress when he entered the plea; and Appellant graduated high school and reported no learning disability. {¶15} On the legal significance of the victims’ non-appearance, the trial court explained that this issue went to the facts of the case, which Appellant had the right to contest by pleading not guilty, and that the victims’ failure to cooperate could have been raised in that posture. The court noted that Ohio’s victim-notification law required the State only to make efforts to notify the alleged victims, not to secure their appearance, and that the file reflected such notification. The court also noted that Appellant additionally stated he was impaired at the time of the underlying incident and reported 106 days of sobriety. {¶16} Following the hearing, on March 6, 2026, the trial court denied Appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea, specifically stating: The Ohio Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1, states that a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty must be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. Since the court has already imposed sentence in this matter, the court can only set aside the plea in order to correct manifest injustice. A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice. A postsentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases. A manifest injustice is “an extraordinary and fundamental flaw in the plea process.” The defendant’s Motion set forth broad, conclusory allegations without any support from the record. Further, the Court held a hearing in Case No. 26 CO 0011  –6– this matter, and the defendant acknowledged that the Court informed him of his rights and of the maximum penalties associated with the charges, that he knew he had the right to be represented by an attorney, that he waived his right to an attorney, that he had a high school diploma, and that he was never diagnosed with any learning disability. The defendant did not demonstrate the existence of a manifest injustice in the form of an extraordinary and fundamental flaw in the plea process. The Defendant’s Motion to Set Aside Plea is denied. (3/6/2026 Judgment Entry). {¶17} Appellant gave notice to the trial court that he would be appealing its March 6, 2026 judgment. On March 9, 2026, Appellant filed a motion to stay his sentence pending appeal which was granted by the trial court two days later. On March 9, 2026, Appellant filed an appeal with this court and raises a single assignment of error. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO CORRECT A MANIFEST INJUSTICE BY DENYING APPELLANT’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW HIS FORMERLY ENTERED NO CONTEST PLEA. {¶18} In his sole assignment of error, Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea following a hearing, thereby failing to correct a manifest injustice. Appellant asserts his plea was accepted without the court first informing him of the effect of a no contest plea, as required by Crim.R. 11(E) and defined by Crim.R. 11(B)(2), and that this omission renders his plea invalid and requires its withdrawal. {¶19} At the outset, we note that Appellant failed to raise the Crim.R. 11 argument below. Where an appellant challenges the trial court’s Crim.R. 11 compliance for the first time on appeal, the failure must be treated as forfeiture under plain error review. See State v. Ferguson, 2020-Ohio-5578, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.). Case No. 26 CO 0011  –7– Plain error is a discretionary doctrine to be used with the utmost care by the appellate court in exceptional circumstances to avoid a manifest miscarriage of justice where an obvious error affected substantial rights, meaning it was outcome determinative. State v. Noling, 98 Ohio St.3d 44, 2002-Ohio-7044, 781 N.E.2d 88, ¶ 62, applying Crim.R. 52(B). State v. Hymes, 2021-Ohio-3439, ¶ 83 (7th Dist.). {¶20} As stated, in his post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea, Appellant, through counsel, advanced the following three reasons: “1. The Defendant plead without the advice of counsel; 2. The Defendant did not understand the severity of the charge; 3. The Defendant has a full-time job.” (1/28/2026 Motion to Set Aside Plea). Appellant did not argue to the trial court that he had not been informed of the effect of his no contest plea under Crim.R. 11. The effect-of-plea argument Appellant now raises was apparent from the plea forms and the record, and could have been raised in his motion below. “A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.” Crim.R. 32.1. When a defendant seeks to withdraw a guilty plea after the trial court imposed a sentence, the defendant bears the burden of establishing the existence of a manifest injustice. State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). Post-sentence plea withdrawal is allowable only in an extraordinary case. Id. State v. Devine, 2019-Ohio-778, ¶ 18 (7th Dist.). {¶21} The substance of Appellant’s claim is that the trial court accepted his no contest plea without informing him of the effect of that plea. Again, Appellant pled no contest to three counts of assault, misdemeanors of the first degree in violation of R.C. 2903.13(A). Thus, Appellant’s no contest plea is governed by the petty-offense provisions of Crim.R. 11(E). See Crim.R. 11(E) (“In misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses the Case No. 26 CO 0011  –8– court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such pleas without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea of guilty, no contest, and not guilty”); Crim.R. 2(D) (“‘Petty offense’ means a misdemeanor other than a serious offense.”) {¶22} In accepting a plea to a misdemeanor involving a petty offense, a trial court is required to inform the defendant only of the effect of the specific plea being entered, and to satisfy that requirement the court must inform the defendant of the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B). See State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 14. For a no contest plea, that language provides that the plea “is not an admission of defendant’s guilt, but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information, or complaint, and the plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.” Crim.R. 11(B)(2). {¶23} The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that “[w]hether orally or in writing, a trial court must inform the defendant of the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B) before accepting a plea.” Jones at ¶ 51. A written plea or waiver form, together with the defendant’s acknowledgment of it, may be considered under the totality of the circumstances in determining whether the defendant understood the effect of the plea. See State v. Craft, 2026-Ohio-1205, ¶ 148 (7th Dist.). {¶24} The record here establishes that Appellant received the required advisement in writing. Again, in addition to the oral advisements and waivers, at his arraignment on October 20, 2025, Appellant also executed a written “Waiver of Rights Upon Plea” form that recited the operative Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language nearly verbatim, stating in part: I also acknowledge that a plea of No Contest is not an admission of guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the complaint or citation, and that such a plea or admission may not be used against me in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. (10/20/2025 Waiver of Rights Upon Plea). {¶25} By signing that form, Appellant was informed, in writing, of precisely the effect of a no contest plea that Crim.R. 11(B)(2) requires. In addition, Appellant also was Case No. 26 CO 0011  –9– advised orally and executed a written “Waiver of Counsel,” as addressed. Thus, because the written “Waiver of Rights Upon Plea” that Appellant signed contained the requisite Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language, the trial court did not err in concluding that Appellant was informed of the effect of his plea. {¶26} Even if the written advisement were viewed as something less than complete compliance, Appellant’s claim would still fail as he has not demonstrated prejudice. Where a trial court does not completely fail to comply with the rule, a defendant challenging the advisement must demonstrate not only error but also prejudice, and “[t]he test for prejudice is ‘whether the plea would have otherwise been made.’” Jones, 2007- Ohio-6093, at ¶ 52, quoting State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1990). Anything short of a complete failure, including the omission of a single aspect of the required language, triggers the requirement that the defendant show prejudice; literal recitation of the rule is not required. See Craft, 2026-Ohio-1205, at ¶ 158-159 (7th Dist.). {¶27} Appellant made no such showing and he never asserted innocence. To the contrary, at his arraignment, Appellant acknowledged the truth of the facts alleged and, when afforded the opportunity to speak, admitted to the criminal conduct and apologized for his actions. Appellant’s assertion that he believed a no contest plea would “lessen the guilt” reflects, at most, a subjective misunderstanding unsupported by the record. (6/18/2026 Appellant’s Brief, p. 1). It does not establish that Appellant would not have entered the plea had the effect been explained differently. {¶28} The record reveals the following: that Appellant acknowledged he had been informed of his rights and of the maximum penalties; that he knew he had the right to counsel and waived it; that he held a high school diploma; and that he had never been diagnosed with any learning disability. Nothing in the record indicates that Appellant would not have entered his no contest plea but for the claimed deficiency, and prejudice, therefore, has not been shown. {¶29} Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea following a hearing. Case No. 26 CO 0011  – 10 – CONCLUSION {¶30} For the foregoing reasons, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is not well- taken. The March 6, 2026 judgment of the Columbiana County Municipal Court denying Appellant’s post-sentence motion to withdraw his no contest plea following a hearing is affirmed. Waite, P.J., concurs. Robb, J., concurs. Case No. 26 CO 0011 [Cite as State v. Pullie, 2026-Ohio-3717.] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignment of error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Columbiana County Municipal Court of Columbiana County, Ohio, is affirmed. Costs to be taxed against the Appellant. A certified copy of this opinion and judgment entry shall constitute the mandate in this case pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. It is ordered that a certified copy be sent by the clerk to the trial court to carry this judgment into execution. NOTICE TO COUNSEL This document constitutes a final judgment entry.