COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 70523 CITY OF GARFIELD HEIGHTS, : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : JOURNAL ENTRY vs. : and : OPINION JOHN MANCINI, : : Defendant-Appellant : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION : JULY 3, 1997 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING : Criminal appeal from : Garfield Heights Municipal : Court : Case No. 96-CRA-2116 JUDGMENT : REVERSED, VACATED AND : REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION : _______________________ APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: James J. McGrath, IV Garfield Heights Prosecutor 5407 Turney Road Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 For defendant-appellant: John Mancini, Pro Se Inmate No. 323-291 N.C.C.I. P.O. Box 1812 Marion, Ohio 43301 -2- NAHRA, J.: On March 22, 1996, appellant John Mancini appeared in Garfield Heights Municipal Court pursuant to theft and obstruction of official business offenses. Obstruction of official business, R.C.2921.31, is a second degree misdemeanor. At his appearance, appellant, with counsel, waived his preliminary hearing on the theft charges, was assigned bond, and was bound over to the court of common pleas. He then entered a no contest plea to the charge of obstruction of official business, was found guilty, and was sentenced to 90 days in the Cuyahoga County Jail and a fine of $750, which was suspended due to his indigency. Appellant, by leave of court, filed an amended brief on March 14, 1997. We address appellant's second assignment of error, which reads: 2. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO INSTRUCT THE APPELLANT ON THE MAXIMUM PENALTY UNDER OHIO LAW PRIOR TO HIS PLEA OF NO CONTEST TO THE OFFENSE OF OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS, O.R.C. 2921.31 A violation of R.C. 2921.31 is a second degree misdemeanor punishable by less than six months in jail, and the entry of appellant's plea is controlled by Crim.R. 11(E), which states: (E) Misdemeanor Cases Involving Petty Offenses. In 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. -3- The counsel provisions of Rule 44(B) and (C) apply to this subdivision. (Emphasis sic.) Although rigid adherence to Crim.R. 11 is preferred, a court need only substantially comply with its requirements as long as the record reflects that under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea by subjectively understanding the effect of the plea and his rights waived. See State v. Nero (1990), 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474, 476 (citing State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St. 86, 364 N.E.2d 1163). In this case, the court explained to appellant the rights he would be waiving by entering a plea of no contest. The court further explained to appellant that it could enter a finding of guilty and proceed to sentence appellant upon his plea. See, R.C. 2937.07. However, the court did not inform appellant of the possible penalty that could be imposed. Crim.R. 11(E) requires that the defendant have the effect of the plea explained to him before the court may accept a no contest plea. We have held that failure to inform a defendant of the potential penalty prior to accepting a plea of no contest is reversible error. See, e.g., Euclid v. Winters (April 21, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65013, unreported (Fine vacated where court did not inform defendant of possibility of fine upon finding of guilt following no contest plea.); see, also, State v. Moore (June 21, 1996), Columbiana App. No. 95-CO-19 (Under Crim.R. 11(E), a court -4- is required to advise the defendant of the effect of his plea which "means that the possible minimum and maximum penalties should [be] explained to [defendant]..."). Because the trial court failed to inform the defendant of the possible sentence he could receive, it did not substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(E) in this case. Accordingly, appellant's second assignment of error is well taken. Appellant's first, third, fourth, and fifth assignments of error listed in the appendix are rendered moot and need not be addressed. See, App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). The trial court's judgment is reversed, appellant's plea is vacated and this case is remanded to the Garfield Heights Municipal Court. -5- This cause is reversed, vacated and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant recover of said appellee his costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PORTER, P.J., and KARPINSKI, J., CONCUR. JOSEPH J. NAHRA JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the journalization of this court's announcement of decision by the clerk per App.R. 22(E). See, also, S.Ct.Prac.R. II, Section 2(A)(1). APPENDIX Appellant's assignment of errors rendered moot by the resolution of this case read: 1. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO QUESTION APPELLANT WHETHER THE PLEA OF NO CONTEST WAS INDUCED BY THREATS OR PROMISES AND FURTHER FAILED TO QUESTION APPELLANT IF HE WAS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS OR NARCOTICS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA. 3. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHERE THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO PROPERLY DETERMINE A FACTUAL BASIS EXISTED TO THE PLEA OF NO CONTEST FOR THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICIAL BUSINESS, ORC 2921.31 (SIC). 4. APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL IN VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION. 5. APPELLANT WAS DENIED DUE PROCESS AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW WHEN THE TRIAL COURT DENIED HIS .