State v. Boddy

[Cite as State v. Boddy, 2026-Ohio-1264.]



                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                    HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO


STATE OF OHIO,                                :        APPEAL NO.        C-250250
                                                       TRIAL NO.         B-2403171
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                  :

   vs.                                        :

PAUL BODDY,                                   :             JUDGMENT ENTRY

         Defendant-Appellant.                 :




          This cause was heard upon the appeal, the record, and the briefs.
          For the reasons set forth in the Opinion filed this date, the judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.
          Further, the court holds that there were reasonable grounds for this appeal,
allows no penalty, and orders that costs be taxed under App.R. 24.
          The court further orders that (1) a copy of this Judgment with a copy of the
Opinion attached constitutes the mandate, and (2) the mandate be sent to the trial
court for execution under App.R. 27.



To the clerk:
Enter upon the journal of the court on 4/8/2026 per order of the court.


By:_______________________
      Administrative Judge
[Cite as State v. Boddy, 2026-Ohio-1264.]



                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                    HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO


STATE OF OHIO,                              :     APPEAL NO.   C-250250
                                                  TRIAL NO.    B-2403171
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                :

   vs.                                      :           OPINION

PAUL BODDY,                                 :

         Defendant-Appellant.               :



Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: April 8, 2026



Connie Pillich, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Judith Anton Lapp,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

Roger W. Kirk, for Defendant-Appellant.
                OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


ZAYAS, Judge.

       {¶1}   Paul Boddy appeals his convictions, following no-contest pleas, for

illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor-permit premises, carrying a concealed

weapon (“CCW”), using a weapon while intoxicated, and possessing a defaced firearm.

In three assignments of error, Boddy contends that the court erred by finding him

guilty without obtaining and accepting express no-contest pleas, failing to inform him

of the effect of the no-contest pleas, and denying his motion to dismiss the indictment

because the charges unconstitutionally deprived him of his Second Amendment right

to bear arms. For the following reasons, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

                              Factual Background

       {¶2}   Paul Boddy was indicted for illegal possession of a firearm in a liquor-

permit premises, CCW, using weapons while intoxicated, and possessing a defaced

firearm. According to the complaints, several witnesses saw Boddy with a firearm

holstered on his hip leaving Fogarty’s bar. The witnesses also observed Boddy entering

Game Time bar. A bartender called the Cheviot Police Department, and officers

responded to the scene.

       {¶3}   On October 23, 2024, Boddy filed a motion to dismiss the indictment

on Second Amendment grounds. The motion alleged that the charges against him

were unconstitutional as applied. With respect to the illegal-possession-of-a-firearm-

in-a-liquor-permit-premises charge, Boddy claimed it was “not consistent with the

tradition of firearms regulation, and the State cannot meet its burden under Bruen to

show otherwise,” citing to State v. Striblin, 2024-Ohio-2142 (5th Dist.). The extent of

his argument on the other charges was simply that “a trial court is required to apply

the Bruen standard to analyze a defendant’s as applied challenge,” and that Boddy had

“no limitation to his concealed carry of a weapon.”


                                          3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


        {¶4}    The State filed a response on November 4, 2024, asking the court to

dismiss Boddy’s motion to dismiss for failing to comply with Crim.R. 47 because

Boddy’s motion lacked a specific legal and factual basis to support his arguments. The

State noted that each offense alleged different conduct, and Boddy did not specify any

factual allegations to support an as-applied challenge. The State requested additional

time to properly respond if Boddy supplemented his motion or if the court found the

motion complied with Crim.R. 47.

        {¶5}    The matter was scheduled for a motion hearing on December 10, 2024.1

On December 10, instead of proceeding on the motion, Boddy requested a continuance

for a plea or trial. Boddy sought seven continuances from December 10, 2024, through

April 2, 2024. The next two requests were for plea or trial. At the fourth and fifth

settings, Boddy requested a continuance for “other” and wrote “motion” on the

continuance entry. At the sixth and seventh hearings, Boddy requested a continuance

for a plea or trial. Two days later, on April 4, 2025, newly appointed counsel filed her

designation and a discovery demand, a request for a bill of particulars, and a request

for the identification of evidence the State intended to introduce at trial.

        {¶6}    On April 21, 2025, Boddy filed a written jury waiver and a written entry

withdrawing his not-guilty pleas and entering pleas of no contest. The written no-

contest plea form included the following: “I understand the plea of no contest is an

admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment but not an admission of

my guilt to the charge(s) against me.”

        {¶7}    The court confirmed that Boddy had signed the plea form and stated,

“Mr. Boddy, you’re pleading to the following: it says, I, Paul Boddy, the defendant in



1 The docket reflects that it was scheduled for a motion to suppress, but a motion to suppress was

not filed. The only motions filed were the two motions to dismiss.


                                                4
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


the above cause, hereby withdraw my plea of not guilty and enter a plea of no contest

on the following charges.” The court read each charge that he was pleading to and

asked, “Those are all no contest?” Counsel responded, “Correct.” The court proceeded

to read the plea forms he entered in two unrelated cases, and Boddy confirmed he was

pleading guilty to those charges.

       {¶8}   The court discussed the sentence with Boddy, including postrelease

control, and confirmed that he wanted to serve his sentence in the Ohio Department

of Corrections as opposed to the jail. The court informed him of the rights he was

waiving and ensured he was satisfied with his counsel, and that he was entering his

pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. With respect to the no-contest pleas,

the court told him that the prosecutor would read the statement of facts, and his

counsel would respond to those facts. The court asked Boddy’s counsel if she had gone

through the plea form with Boddy and explained his constitutional rights. Counsel

confirmed she had done so, and that Boddy was competent to enter the pleas and did

so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

       {¶9}   The prosecutor recited the facts supporting each charge, and when

asked by the court, counsel had nothing to add regarding the facts. The court found

him guilty, and Boddy explained the facts in greater detail. Boddy’s counsel spoke,

and the following colloquy occurred:

       Counsel: No contest plea stems from a brilliant argument based on the

       Country’s - - since the 18th Century law they had alcohol at the time,

       they had bars at the time. They didn’t have an historical precedent of

       banning firearms in establishments that served alcohol. So the no-

       contest plea is, especially the Fifth District in Ohio, they do not believe

       that law comports to be –


                                           5
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


          Court: I know you were going to bring up the Fifth District. First District

          hasn’t followed that law.

          Counsel: No.

The court sentenced Boddy to one year of incarceration on each count to be served

concurrently, with credit for time served.

                           Tendering the No-Contest Plea

          {¶10} In his first assignment of error, Boddy contends that the trial court erred

when it convicted and sentenced him without first obtaining and accepting express no-

contest pleas. Boddy contends that his pleas are invalid because he never orally stated

on the record that he was pleading no contest.

          {¶11} “It is well established that when the trial court accepts a defendant’s plea

of no contest, the record must affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant’s plea was

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.” State v. Muhire, 2023-Ohio-1181,

¶ 10 (12th Dist.), citing State v. Erdman, 2017-Ohio-1092, ¶ 7 (12th Dist.). “[I]n order

to formally tender a no contest plea, ‘a criminal defendant must either do so by signing

a writing reflecting an express plea, or orally, either by saying, affirmatively, that he is

pleading “no contest,” or by responding affirmatively to the trial court’s question, “are

you pleading no contest,” phrased in the present, unconditional tense.’” State v.

Conrad, 2020-Ohio-6673, ¶ 54 (11th Dist.), quoting City of Cleveland v. O’Donnell,

2018-Ohio-390, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Singleton, 2006-Ohio-6314, ¶ 71 (2d

Dist.).

          {¶12} Here, the record reflects that Boddy did not orally tender no-contest

pleas at the hearing. However, Boddy signed a written “Entry Withdrawing Plea of

Not Guilty and Entering Plea of No Contest.” The entry specified that Boddy “freely

and voluntarily withdraw[s] [his] former plea of Not Guity and enter[s] a plea of NO


                                              6
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


CONTEST.” Therefore, Boddy expressly tendered his no-contest pleas in a writing,

changing his pleas from not guilty to no contest. See Conrad at ¶ 54; O’Donnell at ¶

14; Singleton at ¶ 71.

       {¶13} Boddy argues that the convictions must be vacated because he never

orally entered no-contest pleas. Relying on State v. Buffington, 2025-Ohio-2575 (12th

Dist.), State v. Keltner, 2024-Ohio-2017, (12th Dist.), and State v. Muhire, 2023-Ohio-

1181 (12th Dist.), Boddy argues that his pleas were not knowing, voluntary, and

intelligent because he did not enter his pleas upon the record.

       {¶14} However, those cases are inapposite because none of the defendants

filed a written plea. See Buffington at ¶ 25 (the record does not reflect that defendant

expressly entered a no-contest plea or a signed plea); Keltner at ¶ 8 (The record does

not reflect that Keltner tendered a plea, so “there was no plea for the trial court to

accept, and consequently no basis for the judgment of conviction.”); Muhire at ¶ 10

(“the record firmly establishes that Muhire never actually entered a no-contest plea

into the record prior to the trial court issuing its decision finding Muhire guilty”). In

this case, Boddy signed a written entry, withdrawing his not-guilty pleas and entering

pleas of no contest.

       {¶15} Accordingly, we overrule Boddy’s first assignment of error.

                         Effect of the No-Contest Plea

       {¶16} In his second assignment of error, Boddy argues that the trial court

erred by accepting his no-contest pleas without informing him of the effect of the no-

contest pleas in violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), rendering the pleas invalid.

       {¶17}   “A defendant entering a plea in a criminal case must do so knowingly,

intelligently, and voluntarily, and the failure of any one element renders enforcement

of that plea unconstitutional.” State v. Hart, 2024-Ohio-5622, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.),


                                           7
                OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


quoting State v. Mull, 2024-Ohio-370, ¶ 12 (6th Dist.). “Ohio’s Crim.R. 11 outlines the

procedures that trial courts are to follow when accepting pleas.” State v. Dangler,

2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 11.

       {¶18} Under Crim.R. 11(C), “felony defendants are entitled to be informed of

various constitutional and nonconstitutional rights, prior to entering a plea.” State v.

Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 6.          Among the nonconstitutional rights, Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(b) requires the trial court to inform the defendant of the effect of his no-

contest plea and to determine that he understands that effect. Id. at ¶ 10-12; State v.

Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, ¶ 12.

       {¶19} Historically, a trial court was required to substantially comply with

Crim.R. 11 when explaining the nonconstitutional rights set forth in Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(b). See State v. Foster, 2018-Ohio-4006, ¶ 16 (1st Dist.). However, in

Dangler, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized that the “muddled” analysis created by

“suggesting different tiers of compliance,” such as partial and substantial, complicated

what should be a straightforward inquiry. Dangler at ¶ 17. The Court explained that,

       Properly understood, the questions to be answered are simply: (1) has

       the trial court complied with the relevant provision of the rule? (2) if the

       court has not complied fully with the rule, is the purported failure of a

       type that excuses a defendant from the burden of demonstrating

       prejudice? and (3) if a showing of prejudice is required, has the

       defendant met that burden?

Id.

       {¶20} When the court fails to fully comply with Crim.R. 11(C) with respect to

a nonconstitutional right, the plea may be vacated only if the defendant shows

prejudice. Id. at ¶ 16. To show prejudice, the defendant must demonstrate that he or


                                            8
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


she would not otherwise have entered the plea. Id.; State v. Thompson, 2020-Ohio-

211, ¶ 5 (2d Dist.). However, if the trial court completely fails to comply with the

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) effect-of-plea requirement, prejudice need not be demonstrated.

Dangler at ¶ 15; E. Cleveland v. Zapo, 2011-Ohio-6757, ¶ 10 (8th Dist.); State v.

Ramey, 2014-Ohio-2345, ¶ 16 (7th Dist.).

       {¶21} To satisfy the effect-of-plea requirement, a court must inform the

defendant, either orally or in writing, of the appropriate language in Crim.R. 11(B).

Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, at ¶ 25, 51. For a no-contest plea, a defendant must be

informed that “[t]he plea of no contest is not an admission of defendant’s guilt, but is

an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment . . . .” Crim.R. 11(B)(2).

       {¶22} Here, Boddy contends, and the record reflects, that the trial court did

not orally inform him of the effects of his no-contest pleas. Both parties agree that the

court failed to fully comply with the rule.

       {¶23} Thus, the next question is whether the failure is “of a type that excuses

a defendant from the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765,

at ¶ 17. Instead of demonstrating prejudice, Boddy argues the court completely failed

to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), eliminating his need to establish prejudice. See

id. at ¶ 17; State v. Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509, ¶ 22. The State contends that because

the court did not fail to fully comply with the requirement, Boddy’s failure to allege or

establish prejudice is fatal to his argument.

       {¶24} The trial court informed Boddy that the prosecutor would read the

statement of facts, and his counsel would respond to those facts. Additionally, the

signed plea form stated that, “I understand the plea of no contest is an admission of

the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment but not an admission of my guilt to the

charge(s) against me.” The court addressed Boddy and confirmed that he signed the


                                              9
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


form, could read and write, and entered the pleas knowingly, intelligently, and

voluntarily. Boddy’s counsel assured the trial court that she had reviewed the plea

form with Boddy and confirmed that Boddy was competent to enter the pleas and did

so knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.

       {¶25} Based on this record, the court did not completely fail to comply with

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b), and the court’s failure was not a “type that excuses a defendant

from the burden of demonstrating prejudice.” See Dangler at ¶ 17, 23; State v.

Hubbard, 2025-Ohio-5604, ¶ 27-28 (6th Dist.) (holding that the court did not

completely fail to comply where Hubbard signed the plea form explaining the effect of

the plea, the court ensured his attorney reviewed the form and that he signed the form,

and told him he would be required to make a factual statement regarding the

circumstances of the offense); Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093, at paragraph two of the

syllabus, ¶ 51 (“To satisfy the requirement of informing a defendant of the effect of a

plea, a trial court must inform the defendant of the appropriate language under

Crim.R. 11(B),” and it may do so either “orally or in writing.”); State v. Sheppeard,

2023-Ohio-3278, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.) (finding substantial compliance with Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(b) when the plea form included the required advisements and the defendant

had the opportunity to review the form with his attorney and understood the plea).

       {¶26} Accordingly, Boddy must demonstrate prejudice by establishing that he

would not have entered the plea but for the court’s failure to explain the effect of the

plea. See Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, at ¶ 23. “Prejudice must be established on the

face of the record.” (Cleaned up.) Id. at ¶ 24. Boddy does not attempt to establish

prejudice, so his claim must fail. See Hubbard at ¶ 30. Even if he had, nothing in the

record indicates that Boddy would not have entered his pleas had the court fully

complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b). See Dangler at ¶ 24.


                                           10
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


       {¶27} Consequently, we overrule the second assignment of error.

                                  Motion to Dismiss

       {¶28} In his third assignment of error, Boddy argues that the trial court erred

by denying the motion to dismiss the indictment because all three statutes under

which he was charged violated his Second Amendment rights. Boddy seeks to have

his convictions vacated and the matter remanded to the trial court for “dismissal of

the indictment after a precise historical analysis consistent [with Boddy’s] alleged fact

pattern in relation to the Bruen test.” Boddy acknowledges that the trial court did not

conduct a hearing on the motion to dismiss.

       {¶29} The State argues that Boddy’s motion did not raise the issues with

specificity in violation of Crim.R. 47. The State further argues that Boddy abandoned,

and therefore waived, the issue when his second counsel did not adopt the motion or

raise a Bruen argument prior to entering the pleas.

       {¶30} The record reflects that the trial court did not rule on Boddy’s motion to

dismiss the indictment or the State’s motion to strike Boddy’s motion to dismiss.

“Generally, an appellate court will presume that a trial court overruled a motion on

which it did not expressly rule, where it is clear that that is what the trial court actually

intended to do.” State v. Lewis, 2012-Ohio-4696, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.).

       {¶31} Here, the record does not reflect that the court intended to deny the

motion. The trial court scheduled a motion hearing on December 10, 2024. At that

setting, Boddy requested a continuance for a plea or trial. The case was reset on

January 10, 2025, and again Boddy requested a continuance for plea or trial until

January 28. On January 28, the case was continued until February 11, at Boddy’s

request, for a plea or trial. At the February hearing, Boddy requested a continuance

until March 3 for a motion, other than a motion to suppress. On March 3, Boddy


                                             11
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


continued the case until March 25 for a motion, other than a motion to suppress.

Instead of proceeding on the motion on March 25, Boddy requested a continuance for

a plea or trial. On April 4, Boddy obtained new counsel, and at the next setting,

Boddy’s new counsel requested to continue the case until April 14 for a plea or trial.

Boddy’s counsel sought two additional continuances for a plea or trial, and Boddy

pleaded no-contest on April 17.      The record contains no transcripts from those

hearings, only the written continuance entries.

       {¶32} At the plea and sentencing, Boddy made no mention about the motion

to dismiss he filed, did not request a hearing on the motion, and did not request a

ruling from the trial court. Instead, Boddy entered no-contest pleas in this case and

two guilty pleas in unrelated cases. After the court found Boddy guilty, counsel

mentioned that guns and bars existed in the 18th century and referenced a Fifth

District case but did not present an oral argument on the motion to dismiss. Boddy

had three opportunities to argue the motion to dismiss and failed to do so. Instead of

pursuing the motion, Boddy knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his no-

contest pleas.

       {¶33} Consequently, Boddy “implicitly abandoned or withdrew his motion to

dismiss.” See State v. Jabbar, 2021-Ohio-1191, ¶ 21 (8th Dist.). In Jabbar, the Eighth

District Court of Appeals was faced with a similar issue, where the defendant filed a

motion to dismiss, and at the motion hearing, did not discuss or argue the motion. Id.

Instead, he pleaded guilty. Id. The court concluded the defendant “waived all

constitutional errors apart from the constitutional errors that affected his guilty plea.”

Id. at ¶ 22; State v. Fetty, 2007-Ohio-905, ¶ 6 (3d Dist.) (entering a plea of no contest

before the court ruled on the motion to dismiss the indictment “is tantamount to a

withdrawal of the motion”). By withdrawing the motion, Boddy waived the issue for


                                           12
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS


appeal. See id.

       {¶34} Accordingly, we overrule Boddy’s third assignment of error.

                                  Conclusion

       {¶35} Having overruled Boddy’s three assignments of error, we affirm the

judgment of the trial court.

                                                               Judgment affirmed.

KINSLEY, P.J., and BOCK, J., concur.




                                        13