[Cite as State v. Tobe,
2025-Ohio-489.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
MONTGOMERY COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO :
:
Appellee : C.A. No. 30267
:
v. : Trial Court Case No. 2024CRB428
:
LESLIE C. TOBE : (Criminal Appeal from Municipal Court)
:
Appellant :
:
...........
OPINION
Rendered on February 14, 2025
...........
CHRIS BECK, Attorney for Appellant
ASHLEY THOMAS, Attorney for Appellee
.............
LEWIS, J.
{¶ 1} Defendant-Appellant Leslie C. Tobe appeals from her conviction in the
Dayton Municipal Court following her guilty plea to criminal damaging. For the following
reasons, we will affirm the judgment of the trial court.
I. Procedural History and Facts
-2-
{¶ 2} On February 9, 2024, Tobe was charged with one count of criminal
damaging, in violation of R.C. 2909.06(A)(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree. The
charge arose as a result of Tobe’s attacking another person’s vehicle and causing
significant damage. On June 24, 2024, Tobe entered a guilty plea to the offense as
charged.
{¶ 3} During the plea colloquy, the trial court advised Tobe that the maximum
possible penalty for the offense was 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $750. The court
informed Tobe that a guilty plea “means you are making a complete admission of guilt to
the charge.” Tr. 7. The court explained that by entering a guilty plea, Tobe would be
waiving certain constitutional and statutory rights as explained on the plea form. Tobe
acknowledged that she had seen the plea form, reviewed it with her attorney, and
voluntarily signed it. The court then reviewed part of the plea form on the record,
including that by entering a guilty plea Tobe would be waiving her right to a trial and the
State would no longer be required to prove her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The
court advised that by entering a guilty plea, Tobe would be waiving her right to remain
silent, her right to subpoena and present witnesses to testify on her behalf at trial, and the
right to cross-examine witnesses presented by the State to testify against her. Tobe had
no questions about her rights or her waiver of those rights. She acknowledged that no
one had said or done anything to encourage her to enter a guilty plea and that she was
entering it voluntarily. Following the court’s acceptance of Tobe’s guilty plea, the court
ordered a presentence investigation report for purposes of restitution.
{¶ 4} The trial court sentenced Tobe to 90 days in jail, credited her with 4 days
-3-
already served, and suspended the remaining 86 days. Tobe was placed on probation
for a period not to exceed 18 months, was trespassed from 3025-3027 North Main Street
in Dayton, Ohio, and was ordered to complete 40 hours of community service. No
restitution or court costs were imposed due to Tobe’s indigency.
{¶ 5} Tobe filed a motion to stay her sentence, which was denied. Tobe timely
appealed and raises a single assignment of error for our review.
II. Knowing, Intelligent, and Voluntary Plea
{¶ 6} In her sole assignment of error, Tobe contends that the trial court erred in
accepting her guilty plea because it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily
entered. Specifically, she claims that she was not informed that her guilty plea could be
used against her in a present or future civil case that might be filed against her, causing
her plea to be invalid.
{¶ 7} “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).
A plea that is not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily is invalid. State v. Bishop,
2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 10, citing State v. Clark,
2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25. Crim.R. 11, which
outlines the procedures trial courts are to follow when accepting pleas, “ ‘ensures an
adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to personally inform the defendant
of his rights and the consequences of his plea and determine if the plea is understandingly
and voluntarily made.’ ” State v. Dangler,
2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 11, quoting State v. Stone,
43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168 (1975).
{¶ 8} “Crim.R. 11 outlines the procedures courts follow when accepting pleas, and
-4-
those procedures vary depending on whether the offense is a misdemeanor that is a petty
offense, a misdemeanor that is a serious offense, or a felony.” State v. Dean, 2022-
Ohio-2803, ¶ 6 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Howard, 2018-Ohio-5160, ¶ 17 (2d Dist.). A
"serious offense" is defined as “any felony, and any misdemeanor for which the penalty
prescribed by law includes confinement for more than six months.” Crim.R. 2(C). A
“petty offense,” on the other hand, is “a misdemeanor other than a serious offense.”
Crim.R. 2(D).
{¶ 9} Criminal damaging is a misdemeanor of the second degree, with a maximum
possible jail sentence of 90 days. R.C. 2929.24(A)(2). Therefore, criminal damaging
constitutes a petty offense. For a petty offense, the trial court was required to comply
with Crim.R. 11(E) during the plea hearing. Crim.R. 11(E) provides that a trial court shall
not accept a plea “without first informing the defendant of the effect of the plea of guilty,
no contest, and not guilty.” The effect of a guilty plea “is a complete admission of the
defendant’s guilt.” Crim.R. 11(B)(1). Thus, in order to satisfy the requirement of
informing a defendant of “the effect of the plea” before accepting a guilty plea to a
misdemeanor involving a petty offense, the court is required to inform the defendant that
the plea is a complete admission of guilt. State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 20. The
information may be provided either orally or in writing to satisfy the requirement. Id. at
¶ 51.
{¶ 10} In contrast to a guilty plea, a plea of no contest is not an admission of the
defendant’s guilt but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment,
information, or complaint. Crim.R. 11(B)(2). Unlike a guilty plea, a no contest plea may
-5-
not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceedings. Id.
However, “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.) Jones at ¶ 20.
{¶ 11} In this case, because Tobe entered a guilty plea, the trial court was only
required to inform her of the effect of a guilty plea, i.e., that it was a complete admission
of guilt. The trial court informed Tobe that by entering a guilty plea “it means you are
making a complete admission of guilt to the charge.” Tr. 7. Moreover, the trial court
fully informed Tobe of the constitutional rights she was giving up by pleading guilty, the
maximum possible penalties she faced, and verified that Tobe was entering her plea
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Furthermore, Tobe’s plea form identified the
effect of a guilty plea, stating that “a plea of Guilty is a complete admission of my guilt.”
Tobe verified on the record that she had reviewed the plea form with her attorney prior to
signing it and entering her plea orally. The record establishes that the trial court fully
complied with Crim.R. 11(E).
{¶ 12} Nevertheless, Tobe claims that the trial court was also required to inform
her that by entering a guilty plea, her plea could be used against her in future civil or
criminal proceedings. Contrary to Tobe’s contention, there is no requirement that a trial
court advise defendants that, by entering guilty pleas, their pleas could be used against
them in any future civil or criminal proceedings. As previously noted, 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, not the effect of all possible pleas the
-6-
defendant could enter. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, at ¶ 20. “Furthermore, a trial court is
not required to determine, and advise a defendant of, every collateral consequence that
may result from a plea to a misdemeanor in order to render that plea knowing and
voluntary.” State v. Taylor,
2012-Ohio-963, ¶ 35 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Wilkinson,
2005-Ohio-314, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). The effect of a guilty plea is that it constitutes a complete
admission of guilt. That information was provided to Tobe both orally and in writing.
The trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(E), and we find no basis to conclude that
Tobe’s plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
{¶ 13} The assignment of error is overruled.
III. Conclusion
{¶ 14} Having overruled the sole assignment of error, we will affirm the judgment
of the trial court.
.............
EPLEY, P.J. and HUFFMAN, J., concur.
