State v. Smith , 2019 Ohio 3225 ( 2019 )

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2019-Ohio-3225.]
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
TWELFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
BUTLER COUNTY
STATE OF OHIO, :
Appellee, : CASE NO. CA2018-11-225
: OPINION
- vs - 8/12/2019
:
MICHELLE C. SMITH, :
Appellant. :
CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM HAMILTON MUNICIPAL COURT
Case No. 18CRB03232
Neal D. Schuett, City of Hamilton Prosecuting Attorney, 345 High Street, Hamilton, Ohio
45011, for appellee
Engel & Martin, LLC, Mary K. Martin, 4660 Duke Drive, Suite 101, Mason, Ohio 45040, for
appellant
PIPER, J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Michelle Smith, appeals a decision of the Hamilton Municipal Court
finding her in contempt.
{¶ 2} Smith used her cell phone to record proceedings in the Hamilton Municipal
Court, which is a violation of the court's local rules. The court found Smith in contempt after
she pled no contest, and ordered her to serve four days in jail. The court also imposed a fine
and two years of nonreporting community control. Smith now appeals the municipal court's
Butler CA2018-11-225
decision, raising the following assignments of error.
{¶ 3} Assignment of Error No. 1:
{¶ 4} APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED AND THUS HER
PLEA WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
{¶ 5} Smith argues in her first assignment of error that her plea was invalid.
{¶ 6} According to Crim.R. 11(E), "in misdemeanor cases involving petty offenses the
court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or no contest, and shall not accept such plea
without first informing the defendant of the effect of the pleas of guilty, no contest, and not
guilty."
{¶ 7} Before Smith pled no contest, the municipal court explained the effect of her
plea. "Ms. Smith, if you plead No Contest that means you're admitting the facts that is [sic]
set forth in the complaint. A lot of times when people plead No Contest[,] you know, they are
found to be Guilty. Do you understand that?" The court then went forward to address the
facts and that Smith used her cell phone during court proceedings, which was a violation of
Loc.R. 23. The court then continued, "One video on the phone. If you plead No Contest you
would be admitting those facts. Did you understand that?" Smith answered that she did
understand and did not object to the facts as read or to the municipal court's explanation of
the effect of her plea.
{¶ 8} The municipal court went on to explain the sentence it would impose, including
four days in jail, a fine, and two years of nonreporting community control. Smith indicated
that she understood the punishment she would receive upon her plea. Smith further
confirmed that she wished to move forward with her plea after the court asked if she wanted
to "go ahead today" with the plea.
{¶ 9} The record indicates that the municipal court complied fully with Crim.R. 11(E)
by explaining the effect of Smith's no contest plea. As such, Smith's first assignment of error
-2-
Butler CA2018-11-225
is overruled.
{¶ 10} Assignment of Error No. 2:
{¶ 11} THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FINDING APPELLANT IN
CONTEMPT.
{¶ 12} Smith argues in her second assignment of error that the trial court erred in
finding her in contempt.
{¶ 13} Smith was charged with indirect contempt according to R.C. 2705.02 for
disobedience of a court rule. The municipal court's Loc.R. 23, provides that "the use of any
cell phone, computer, electronic devices or other personal communication device is
prohibited in the Courtroom * * *."
{¶ 14} "Because the purpose of contempt proceedings is to uphold the dignity and
authority of the courts, great deference is given to the judgment of the trial judge."
Denovchek v. Bd. of Trumbull Cty. Commrs., 36 Ohio St. 3d 14, 15 (1988). Accordingly, the
determination of what constitutes contempt of court is within the sound discretion of the trial
court, and will not be reversed absent an abuse of the court's discretion. Id. Abuse of
discretion connotes more than an error of law or judgment; it implies that the court's attitude
is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. State v. Barnes, 12th Dist. Brown No.
CA2010-06-009, 2011-Ohio-5226.
{¶ 15} According to the record, specifically Smith's admission to the facts, she used
her cell phone to videotape proceedings in the municipal court. As such, there is no doubt
that she violated Loc.R. 23 and the court did not abuse its discretion by finding Smith in
contempt. As such, Smith's second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 16} Judgment affirmed.
S. POWELL, P.J., and M. POWELL, J., concur.
-3-