State v. Bailey, 2014 Ohio 639

Christopher Bailey was indicted on three domestic violence counts and one intimidation charge; he pled not guilty and trial was set.
On the morning of trial the State disclosed audio recordings of calls in which Bailey allegedly made intimidating statements to the victim; defense counsel requested a continuance to review the tapes, which was denied.
Defense counsel moved to withdraw, explaining that the recorded calls suggested he had advised the victim and that his continued representation would create prejudice; the court granted withdrawal.
During a brief recess counsel, Bailey, and the prosecutor discussed a plea; counsel then withdrew his withdrawal, was reinstated, and negotiated a plea: Bailey pled guilty to two counts (Counts III and IV) in exchange for dismissal of the others and a 30-month sentence on each count to run consecutively (5 years total).
At the plea colloquy Bailey answered that he had not discussed the case and possible defenses with his attorney; the court accepted the plea without further inquiry into that response.
The appellate court vacated Bailey’s guilty pleas, holding the court erred by reinstating counsel after withdrawal and failing to probe Bailey’s negative answer about consulting counsel; the sentencing issue was rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bailey's guilty plea was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent	The State argued plea was valid because court performed Crim.R. 11 colloquy and plea was knowingly entered	Bailey argued plea was invalid due to rushed process, counsel’s withdrawal/reinstatement after a conflict, denial of continuance, and failure to discuss defenses with counsel	Court: Plea invalid — reversed and vacated due to counsel conflict and court’s failure to inquire when defendant said he had not discussed defenses
Whether domestic-violence conviction was properly enhanced to a 3rd-degree felony	State relied on prior convictions to enhance the domestic-violence count	Bailey contested enhancement (argument not reached on appeal after plea vacated)	Court: Issue rendered moot by vacatur of plea

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (a guilty plea must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent under due process)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Ohio 2008) (trial courts must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) for constitutional-right waivers)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (Ohio 2004) (defendant must show prejudice when claiming failure to substantially comply with nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 colloquy)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial — not strict — compliance required for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) and (b))
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (explaining subjective understanding standard for substantial compliance with plea colloquy)