COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 73628 CITY OF GARFIELD HEIGHTS ACCELERATED DOCKET Plaintiff-appellee JOURNAL ENTRY vs. AND LINDA HOLLOWAY OPINION Defendant-appellant PER CURIAM DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: DECEMBER 3, 1998 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Criminal appeal from Garfield Heights Municipal Court, Case No. 97-CRB-8325 JUDGMENT: Reversed and Remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For plaintiff-appellee: For defendant-appellant: JAMES McGRATH IV LESTER S. POTASH 5407 Turney Road 2000 Illuminating Building Garfield Heights, Ohio 44125 55 Public Square Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: Defendant-appellant LindaHolloway appeals in this accelerated appeal from her no contest plea conviction for petty theft in the Garfield Heights Municipal Court. Defendant was charged November 17, 1997, with petty theft in violation of R.C. 2913.02 by shoplifting $51 worth of merchandise from Finast Supermarkets. Following arraignment, the municipal court continued the matter until December 2, 1997, when the matter proceeded to a hearing. Defendant appeared at the hearing without counsel. The transcript of the hearing filed with this Court on appeal begins as follows: THE BAILIFF: Linda Sue Halloway [sic]. THE COURT: Linda Sue, you're charged with grand [sic] theft. What is your plea, ma'am? THE DEFENDANT: No contest. THE COURT: No contest. And that's within the City of Garfield Heights [,] on the 17th of November you took property not your own without the consent of the owner. This could carry six months and a thousand dollars. Consequently I'm going to ask that you indicate to the Court that you understand your rights by signing a statement of rights, waiver of trial by jury, indicating to the Court that you are waiving counsel and jury and that you understand your rights. After recess we'll continue with sentencing then, ma'am. (Short recess taken.) The BAILIFF: Linda Sue Halloway [sic]. THE COURT: Linda, you've entered a plea. The plea is guilty [sic] ***. (Tr. 2.) -3- The municipal court never explained the effect of the no contest plea entered by defendant. Rather, the municipal court stated merely with this plea you admit guilt. (Tr. 3.) The municipal court thereafter found her guilty and imposed a six-month sentence and $1,000 fine. In an entry journalized December 8, 1997, the court suspended all but 15 days in jail and $350 of the fine, and placed defendant on inactive probation for three years. Defendant timely appeals, raising two assignments of error. Defendant's first assignment of error follows: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE DEFENDANT'S PLEA OF NO CONTEST. This assignment is well taken. Defendant argues that the municipal court failed to inform her of any rights prior to the entry of her plea in violation of Crim.R. 11(E). After reviewing the record, we are compelled to agree. City of Cleveland v. Abuaun (Feb. 19, 1998), Cuyahoga App. Nos. 72342 and 72343, unreported at p. 2. Crim.R. 11(E) governs plea proceedings in misdemeanor cases such as those involving the petty theft in this case, and provides as follows: 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. The counsel provisions of Crim.R. 44(B) and (C) apply to division (E) of this rule. (Emphasis added.) As noted above, the transcript of proceedings filed in this case reveals that the municipal court never explained the effect of -4- the various pleas. Nor did the court discuss any rights to th defendant until euncounselled after eliciting her p trial court mentioned only two specific rights and failed to mention the effect of her no contest plea.1 Crim.R. 11(E) expressly provides, however, that a trial court shall not accept a plea before first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea. In Abuaun, this Court stated as follows: where a trial court in a misdemeanor case accepts a no contest plea without first informing the defendant of the effect of such plea, as mandated by Crim.R. 11(E), and there is absolutely no compliance with the rule, the error is prejudicial, even when the defendant is represented by counsel. Id. at p. 2 (Citations omitted). A court's latitude to streamline proceedings ends, at the latest, when it cuts bone. The requirement of informing defendant of the effect of the plea is fundamental. Any knowledge obtained after entering a plea from the belated distribution of a preprinted written form does not render the prior plea knowing, voluntary, or intelligent. Before the plea is initially made, the court must expressly state the effect of a particular plea. Accordingly, defendant's first assignment of error is sustained. Defendant's second assignment of error challenges the sentence imposed for her petty theft conviction. Because of our disposition 1 It appears from the transcript of proceedings that the municipal court confused her plea of no contest with a plea of guilty. -5- of her first assignment, which requires reversing her conviction, we decline to address her second assignment pursuant to App.R. 12(A)(1)(c). Judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Judgment accordingly. -6- This cause is reversed and remanded. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant recover of appellee her costs herein taxed. 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. PATRICIA A. BLACKMON, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DIANE KARPINSKI, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, 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 .