State v. Barker
129 Ohio St. 3d 472
| Ohio | 2011Background
- Barker was indicted on five counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor, all third-degree felonies.
- He pled not guilty at first but later entered a no-contest plea to counts 1–3.
- The trial court explained Barker’s rights, including the right to testify and to have the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court asked Barker if he understood that pleading waives the right to call witnesses to speak on his behalf, using the phrase at issue.
- Barker signed a change-of-plea form stating he could call witnesses to testify for him and that he understood giving up those rights.
- The court accepted the plea; Barker was convicted on counts 1–3; on appeal, the court of appeals reversed, finding Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) not satisfied by the phrase used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the phrase 'right to call witnesses to speak on your behalf' satisfies Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). | Barker argued the phrase was insufficient to convey compulsory process rights. | The State contends the phrase is a reasonable, intelligible description of the right. | Yes; phrase is reasonably intelligible and satisfies the right to compulsory process. |
| Whether an ambiguity in the Crim.R. 11 colloquy may be clarified by the written plea or other record. | Veney prevents reliance on other sources to convey rights. | Ballard allows considering the totality of the record to clarify ambiguities. | Yes; ambiguities may be clarified by the record, including the written plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- Veney v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (reaffirmed totality-of-the-circumstances approach, strict compliance required but not literal wording)
- Ballard v. State, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (approved totality-of-the-circumstances method for informing rights)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (rights to be informed of are protected; Boykin governing doctrine)
- Engle v. State, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (necessity of knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea; Crim.R. 11 basics)
- United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55 (2002) (federal law permitting non-literal but adequate conveyance of rights)