State v. Newton

[Cite as State v. Newton, 2026-Ohio-3669.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ERIE COUNTY State of Ohio/City of Sandusky Court of Appeals No. E-26-011 Appellee Trial Court No. 25-CRB-199 v. Landon Newton DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 18, 2026 ***** Kevin J. Baxter, Prosecuting Attorney, and Kristin R. Palmer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Henry Schaefer, for appellant. ***** SULEK, J. {¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Landon Newton, appeals a judgment of the Sandusky Municipal Court which he contends is invalid because the trial court failed to inform him of the effect of his no contest plea under Crim.R. 11(E). The State concedes the error.  I. Facts {¶ 2} On February 5, 2025, Sandusky Police filed a sworn complaint charging Newton with domestic violence, a first-degree misdemeanor. The complaint alleged that on February 2, Newton caused or attempted to cause physical harm to a family or household member; specifically, he slapped J.N. across the face. Newton pleaded not guilty. {¶ 3} On July 15, 2025, the court held a pretrial. A “Pretrial Report” referencing plea negotiations and signed by the State and Newton’s attorney appears in the record. At Newton’s January 21, 2026, sentencing hearing, the trial court initially stated: It’s my understanding that this matter has been pending in the Court for some time and that the parties reached an agreement with respect to this matter and that the Defendant entered a no contest plea back on July 15, 2025. [Defense counsel], is that your understanding? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: That is my understanding, Your Honor. The court then sentenced Newton to a 30-day jail sentence, with 28 days suspended, and a fine. {¶ 4} This appeal followed. II. Assignment of Error {¶ 5} Newton raises the following assignment of error: I. The Trial Court erred by accepting Landon Newton’s no contest plea without personally addressing him in open court and informing him of the effect of the plea as required by Crim.R. 11(E), thereby rendering the plea invalid and the conviction void. 2.  III. Analysis {¶ 6} In his sole assignment of error, Newton argues that the trial court erred when it accepted his no contest plea without first informing him of the effect of his plea as required under Crim.R. 11(E), thereby rendering the plea invalid. Newton pleaded no contest to domestic violence, R.C. 2919.25, a first-degree misdemeanor, considered a petty offense and subject to the admonitions under Crim.R. 11(E). State v. Willis, 2025- Ohio-688, ¶ 17 (6th Dist.), citing State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 20. Crim.R. 11(E) provides that a 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. “‘[T]o satisfy the requirement of informing a defendant of the effect of a plea, a trial court must inform the defendant of the appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B)’ either orally or in writing before accepting the plea.” Id., quoting Jones at ¶ 51. {¶ 7} Crim.R. 11(B)(2) provides: The plea of no contest 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 admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding. {¶ 8} A trial court’s failure to inform a defendant of the Crim.R. 11(B)(2) language concerning the effect of a no contest plea to a petty misdemeanor offense is a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(E), requiring that the plea be vacated. State v. Manning, 2023-Ohio-4455, ¶ 9 (6th Dist.), citing Cleveland v. O’Donnell, 2018-Ohio- 390, ¶ 12 (8th Dist.). 3.  {¶ 9} At the January 21, 2026 sentencing hearing, the trial court references Newton’s no contest plea purportedly entered on July 15, 2025. There is no indication in the record that prior to accepting Newton’s plea the trial court complied with any of the requirements under Crim.R. 11(E). Accordingly, Newton’s assignment of error is well- taken. IV. Conclusion {¶ 10} On due consideration, the judgment of the Sandusky Municipal Court is reversed, Newton’s conviction is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. Pursuant to App.R. 24, the State is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal. 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. Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. JUDGE Myron C. Duhart, J JUDGE Charles Sulek, J 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/. 4.