State v. Coleman
2012 Ohio 1712
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Coleman was indicted on aggravated vehicular assault, vehicular assault, driving under suspension, failure to control, and two OVI counts; he pled guilty to aggravated vehicular assault, driving under suspension, and one OVI, with other charges dismissed.
- The trial court sentenced Coleman to 7 years in prison, suspended his license for 10 years, and ordered $55,000 restitution.
- Coleman appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary due to improper Crim.R. 11 disclosures, including rights to compulsory process, protection against self-incrimination, and jury unanimity.
- The court found the plea colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights through oral explanation and a signed written plea agreement; the records showed understanding and waiver of rights.
- The court held Coleman knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived rights, and overruled the assignment of error; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the plea colloquy properly informed Coleman of rights waived | Coleman: failed to inform about compulsory process and self-incrimination | State: rights were adequately explained and waiver valid | Assignment of error overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011-Ohio-4130) (Crim.R. 11(C) rights explained; waiver valid if understood)
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (nonverbatim Crim.R. 11(C) language acceptable if rights explained)
- State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (2006-Ohio-5283) (jury-trial waiver need not be fully technical; must understand rights waived)
- State v. Howdyshell, 2009-Ohio-4238 (5th Dist. No. CT 2008-0040) (extends Barker principle to plea context; informational sufficiency)
- State v. Simpson, 2008-Ohio-2460 (10th Dist. No. 07AP-929) (jury unanimity not required to be disclosed in plea waiver)