On May 11, 2022, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in State of Ohio v. Davis Anthony Hill, 2021-0913. At issue in this case is whether a trial court abuses its discretion by preventing a criminal defendant from pleading no contest.

Case Background

On August 26, 2019, Hill was indicted on seven counts of various drug trafficking charges, including trafficking and possession of heroin and fentanyl. Hill initially pled not guilty, but following the court denying multiple motions to suppress, Hill expressed interest in pleading no contest to Judge Taryn Heath in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. The State objected, and Judge Heath indicated that she rarely granted pleas of no contest. Hill eventually entered a plea of guilty, and was sentenced to 16-21.5 years in prison. Hill appealed to the Fifth District.

The Appeal

In the issue pertinent to his Supreme Court appeal, Hill argued it was an abuse of discretion for the trial judge not to allow him to enter a plea of no contest.

In a unanimous decision authored by Judge John W. Wise, and joined by Judges William B. Hoffman and Judge Earle E. Wise, the Fifth District affirmed the trial court, finding that the trial court had discretion under the criminal rules to refuse a plea of no contest. Although it could be an abuse of discretion for a court to adopt a blanket policy rejecting all no contest pleas (as in Beasley), the trial court in this case made it clear that there are instances where it would accept a no contest plea. As such, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by preventing Hill from pleading no contest. Hill appealed again.

Votes to Accept the Case

Yes: Justices DeWine, Fischer*, Donnelly*, Stewart*

No: Chief Justice O’Connor, Justices Kennedy and Brunner.

*would have accepted both propositions of law.

Key Statutes and Precedent

Crim.R. 11(C)(2) (“In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest . . .”)

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (“The term ‘abuse of discretion’ connotates more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable.”)

Elevators Mut. Ins. Co. v. J. Patrick O’Flaherty’s, Inc., 2010-Ohio-1043 (“The purpose behind the inadmissibility of no-contest pleas in subsequent proceedings is to encourage plea bargaining as a means of resolving criminal cases by removing any civil consequences of the plea” and “avoid the admission of guilt.”)

State v. Beasley, 2018-Ohio-16 (A court that rejects any and all no contest pleas, without considering the facts or circumstances of the case, constitutes a blanket policy, and is thus arbitrary and constitutes an abuse of discretion.)

State v. Carter, 124 Ohio App.3d 423 (2nd Dist. 1997) (A court’s blanket policy of not accepting no contest pleas forces the defendant to plead guilty or risk a more severe sentence and constitutes an abuse of discretion.)

State v. Graves, 1998 WL 808356 (unreported) (10th Dist. 1998) (A blanket policy of not accepting no contest pleas constitutes an abuse of discretion.)

Hill’s Proposition of Law Accepted for Review

If the Trial Court abused its discretion in not allowing a Defendant to enter a plea of no contest, then reversal is appropriate. Here, where the Trial Court refused to allow Defendant to enter a plea of no contest, arbitrarily, reversal is appropriate.

Hill’s Argument

This case is similar to Beasley, where the Court found the trial court had abused its discretion when rejecting a no contest plea without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. Blanket policies of rejecting no contest pleas are always arbitrary and constitute abuse of discretion. The trial court’s statement that it “rarely” accepts no contest pleas was meant solely to avoid the impression that there was a blanket policy. But, the trial court has adopted a blanket policy, as evidenced by the court’s statement “that’s the way we do things,” and if it allowed Hill to plead no content, the court would never get any work done. The case should be remanded to the trial court with instructions to take a no-contest plea.

State’s Argument

A trial court has discretion to accept or reject a no contest plea under Ohio’s criminal rules. The trial court in this case exercised its discretion, and there is no evidence that the court has a blanket policy of rejecting no contest pleas. Just because a court states that it grants no contest pleas sparingly does not indicate that it does not do so when appropriate.

All of the cases Hill cites involve actual fixed policies established by the court and stated on the record. There is no evidence of that kind here in this case, and no indication that the court acted arbitrarily. Additionally, Hill’s argument contradicts itself by claiming that the court both abused its discretion and failed to exercise its discretion.

Amicus in Support of Hill

VanHo Law

VanHo Law, a law firm that represents individuals charged with misdemeanor and felony offenses (among a broader practice) writes in support of Hill. Permitting the no contest standard to continue will cause confusion and inconsistent application for VanHo Law’s current and future clients.

A criminal defendant is coerced into pleading guilty when denied the right to plead no contest, or to take the matter to trial. There are a number of collateral consequences as well, including “potential immigration issues,” and opening criminal defendants up to civil recovery for criminal conduct under Ohio law.

The Court should modify its standards and presume the right of criminal defendants to plead no contest. Or, alternatively, the Court should adopt the approach of the federal standard, which requires the court to consider the parties’ views and “public interest in the effective administration of justice.” In this case, the Court should reverse the Fifth District’s decision and vacate the conviction and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Student Contributor: Liam H. McMillin