State v. Caudell, 2020 Ohio 1557

On May 3, 2018, Caudell drove left of center and collided head-on with another vehicle; the other driver died. A urine toxicology test showed cocaine in Caudell’s system.
Grand jury indicted Caudell on aggravated vehicular homicide (felony 2), misdemeanor vehicular homicide, and two misdemeanors for operating under the influence of a listed controlled substance.
In April 2019 Caudell withdrew his not-guilty pleas and pled guilty to Count 1 (aggravated vehicular homicide) and Count 3 (OUI—controlled substance); remaining counts were dismissed.
At the Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy the trial court asked: “Do you understand that you’re not required to testify against yourself?” Caudell answered yes and confirmed he was waiving that right.
Court sentenced Caudell to the mandatory seven years on Count 1 and six months concurrent on Count 3; Caudell appealed, arguing the plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court failed to sufficiently advise him of his right to remain silent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) in advising the defendant of his privilege against self-incrimination	State: The court’s colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11 and conveyed the privilege in a reasonably intelligible way	Caudell: Court’s wording (“not required to testify”) did not expressly state he could not be compelled to testify or that failure to testify could not be commented on; thus plea was not knowing/voluntary	The court held the advisement reasonably conveyed the Fifth Amendment privilege and strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c); plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary

State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (same principle on plea validity)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (plea colloquy need not be verbatim if rights are explained in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for constitutional advisements in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c))
State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (dictionary-based interpretation can make alternative phrasing reasonably intelligible)
State v. Singh, 141 Ohio App.3d 137 (11th Dist. 2000) (court’s phrasing may be inadequate if it only addresses a choice to testify without conveying non-compulsion)
State v. Madaris, 156 Ohio App.3d 211 (1st Dist. 2004) (alternative wording conveying compulsion can satisfy Crim.R. 11)