State ex rel. Leis v. Gusweiler, 418 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
State ex rel. Leis v. Gusweiler, 418 N.E.2d 397 (Ohio 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · 2 courts · …placed in jeopardy at the time the trial court exercises its discretion to accept a no contest plea. ✓
53 citation events (30 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Becker
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983 2004 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 4 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Becker
unknown court · 2024 · confidence medium
Leis v. Gusweiler, 65 Ohio St.2d 60, 61 (1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Silka
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Leis v. Gusweiler, 65 Ohio St.2d 60, 61 (1981) and State v. Turpin, 12th Dist.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Blankenshp
Ohio Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
Leis v. Gusweiler, 65 Ohio St.2d 60, 61 (1981). {¶13} Here, the State argues that if the first citation issued to Ms. Blankenship was defective, then the trial court lacked jurisdiction to accept her no contest plea and jeopardy never attached.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mayfield Hts. v. Aziz-Hakim
Ohio Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
Leis v. Gusweiler (1981), 65 Ohio St. 2d 60, 61 , 19 Ohio Op. 3d 257 , 418 N.E. 2d 397, 398 , or dismiss the charge.” (Footnote omitted.) Id. at 424-425. {¶13} The waiver of rights form signed by Aziz-Hakim stated: I understand that if I plead no contest, the Court will make a finding regarding whether I am guilty or not guilty based upon the explanation of the circumstances as they are set forth in the complaint, as they are presented by the prosecutor, or as they are presented by the complainant. {¶14} Although the waiver of rights form used the words “guilty or not guilty,” the form…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The State, ex rel. Leis, Pros. Atty.
v.
Gusweiler, Judge
No. 80-1185.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 25, 1981.
418 N.E.2d 397
1981 Ohio LEXIS 445
Mr. Simon L. Leis, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Leonard Kirschner, for appellee., Mr. Robert R. Hastings, Jr., and Mr. Thomas W. Miller, for appellant.
Brown, Celebrezze, Holmes, Locher, Sweeney.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

In State, ex rel. Sawyer, v. O’Connor (1978), 54 Ohio St. 2d 380, this court stated that on a plea of no contest the court could find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense in the event of a finding of not guilty as to the principal charge. Although the charged offense in O’Connor was a misdemeanor rather than a felony, as in the instant cause, Crim. R. 11(A), which provides for the plea of no contest, makes no distinction between felony and misdemeanor offenses. Since the case was submitted on a plea of no contest, appellant had the authority to enter a finding on the lesser included offense.

Appellee contends the oral pronouncement made by appellant does not create such finality as would place Brutsche in jeopardy. However, this court further stated in O’Connor, at page 382, that the defendant “was placed in jeopardy at the time the trial court exercised its discretion to accept a no contest plea.” The United States Supreme Court has stated that jeopardy attaches in a criminal case when the defendant is “ ‘put to trial before the trier of the facts, whether the trier be a jury or a judge.’ ” Serfass v. United States (1975), 420 U. S. 377, 388.

Here, the appellant exercised his discretion to accept a no contest plea and resolved the factual elements of the charged offense against the state by indicating his intent to find the defendant guilty of an attempt rather than guilty of the principal charge. Thus, jeopardy has attached in the instant cause.

The writ issued by the Court of Appeals would result in the defendant being placed twice in jeopardy. Mandamus will not issue to command a vain act. O’Connor, supra, at page 383; State, ex. rel. Freeman, v. Valentine (1971), 25 Ohio St. 2d 184.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals granting the writ is reversed.

Judgment reversed.

Celebrezze, C. J., W. Brown, P. Brown, Sweeney, Locher, Holmes and C. Brown, JJ., concur.