State v. Brinkman (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 2473

George C. Brinkman was charged with three counts of aggravated murder (with capital specifications), aggravated burglary, kidnapping, and abuse of a corpse; he moved from a not-guilty plea to guilty at a plea hearing on November 5, 2018.
At the November 5 colloquy the trial court accepted Brinkman’s guilty pleas and stated they were knowingly and voluntarily entered, but the court did not advise him of two specific Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights: the right to confront witnesses and the right to have the State prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The case then proceeded before a three-judge panel; the State presented evidence from November 5–7, and the panel heard and admitted exhibits and rested on November 7.
On November 9 the court conducted a second colloquy and this time informed Brinkman of the confrontation and reasonable-doubt rights, but the court did not ask him to reenter his plea nor explicitly re-accept the plea after giving those advisals.
The three-judge panel entered findings of guilt and imposed death sentences; Brinkman appealed, arguing the original plea was invalid because the trial court did not strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
The Ohio Supreme Court held the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) before accepting the plea, ruled the plea invalid, vacated convictions and sentences, and remanded for new proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) before accepting Brinkman’s guilty plea	The State: compliance was achieved because the court fully advised Brinkman during the Nov. 9 colloquy, so the plea was valid	Brinkman: the court accepted his plea on Nov. 5 without advising of confrontation and reasonable-doubt rights, so Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) was not satisfied	The court held the record shows the plea was accepted on Nov. 5 before the omitted advisals; strict compliance was lacking and the plea was invalid
Whether advising the defendant of omitted rights after the plea (post-acceptance) cures the defect	The State: post-acceptance advisals cured any omission; to vacate would elevate form over substance	Brinkman: post hoc advisals cannot cure noncompliance because the waiver occurs when the plea is entered; the court must ensure understanding before accepting a plea	The court rejected the "form over substance" argument and held that later advisals do not cure the trial court’s failure to strictly comply; the plea remained invalid

Veney v. Ohio, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); failure to orally inform defendant of right to require the State to prove guilt invalidates plea)
Miller v. Ohio, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 (2020) (reaffirmed strict-compliance rule; failure to comply is plain error and not harmless)
Clark v. Ohio, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; trial courts should follow Crim.R. 11 as a checklist)
Ballard v. Ohio, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (defendant must have a full understanding of rights waived by a guilty plea)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (a guilty plea simultaneously waives multiple constitutional rights)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (court must ensure defendant fully understands what a guilty plea connotes and its consequences)