State v. Evearitt

[Cite as State v. Evearitt, 2026-Ohio-3477.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT LUCAS COUNTY State of Ohio/City of Toledo Court of Appeals No. {48}L-26-00072 Appellee Trial Court No. CRB-25-10642 v. Elaine Evearitt DECISION AND JUDGMENT Appellant Decided: September 4, 2026 ***** Rebecca Facey, City of Toledo Prosecuting Attorney, and Jimmie Jones, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Tyler Naud Jechura, for appellant. ***** MAYLE, J. {¶ 1} Appellant, Elaine Evearitt, appeals the February 26, 2026 decision of the Toledo Municipal Court sentencing her for a disorderly conduct conviction. Evearitt argues in her brief that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 when it accepted her no-contest plea. The City has conceded error. Because we agree that the trial court completely failed to comply with the applicable sections of Crim.R. 11, we reverse.  {¶ 2} Following an altercation outside of her children’s school, Evearitt was charged by complaint with one count of “Safe School Disorderly/Disrupting School Activity” in violation of Toledo Municipal Code 537.16, a first-degree misdemeanor. Evearitt and the City reached an agreement under which Evearitt agreed to plead no contest to a reduced charge of disorderly conduct in violation of R.C. 2917.11(A)(1), a fourth-degree misdemeanor. {¶ 3} At the plea and sentencing hearing, although the trial court discussed the specific terms of the plea agreement, it did not, at any point, tell Evearitt the effect of her no-contest plea. The court sentenced her to 30 days in jail, which it suspended on the condition that Evearitt complete two years of probation. {¶ 4} Evearitt now appeals, raising one assignment of error: THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO QUESTION MS. EVEARITT AS TO HER UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF ENTERING A PLEA AS NECESSITATED BY CRIMINAL RULE 11. {¶ 5} In her assignment of error, Evearitt argues that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11, so she did not enter her plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. She also contends that the trial court should have inquired about her understanding of the plea and informed her of the constitutional rights she was giving up before accepting her misdemeanor plea. The state concedes that the trial court did not comply with the requirements of Crim.R. 11. 2.  {¶ 6} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). When an appellant argues on appeal that her plea was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent and seeks to vacate her plea because of the trial court’s failure to comply with Crim.R. 11, “the questions to be answered are simply: (1) has the trial court complied with the relevant provision of the rule? (2) if the court has not complied fully with the rule, is the purported failure of a type that excuses a defendant from the burden of demonstrating prejudice? and (3) if a showing of prejudice is required, has the defendant met that burden?” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 17. Unless the trial court completely fails to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11, the appellant is required to show prejudice to have her plea vacated. Dangler at ¶ 13-16; Bellevue v. Greer, 2025-Ohio- 5775, ¶ 17-18 (6th Dist.). {¶ 7} In this case, the offense Evearitt pleaded to was a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 30 days confinement. Thus, it was a petty offense. See Crim.R. 2(C), (D). Before a trial court may accept a plea of no contest to a petty offense, it must comply with the provisions of Crim.R. 11(E). Under that rule, “[i]n misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses, the 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.” Id. “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.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Jones, 3. 2007-Ohio-6093, paragraph one of the syllabus. “To 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).” Id. at paragraph two of the syllabus. Crim.R. 11(B)(2) explains that “[t]he 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 plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding.” {¶ 8} Here, the trial court did not say anything to Evearitt that could be construed as explaining the effect of a no-contest plea. Thus, the court completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(B)(2) and (E). Because it completely failed to comply with the rule, Evearitt is not required to show prejudice to have her plea vacated. Dangler at ¶ 13-16; Greer at ¶ 17-18. {¶ 9} We also note that Evearitt incorrectly argues that the trial court was required to advise her of the constitutional rights she was waiving by entering a plea. As the Ohio Supreme Court made clear in Jones, at paragraph one of the syllabus, “[i]n 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.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, the trial court was not required to address constitutional rights before accepting Evearitt’s plea in this case. {¶ 10} Evearitt’s assignment of error is well-taken. 4.  {¶ 11} Based on the foregoing, the February 26, 2026 decision of the Toledo Municipal Court is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision. The City is ordered to pay the costs of this appeal under App.R. 24. Judgment reversed and remanded. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27. Christine E. Mayle, J. ____________________________ JUDGE Gene A. Zmuda, J. ____________________________ Charles E. Sulek, J. JUDGE 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/. 5.