State v. Crawford
2018 Ohio 2166
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Deon Crawford was indicted on multiple counts including aggravated robbery; he negotiated a plea to one count of second-degree robbery in exchange for dismissal of other counts and a recommended seven-year sentence.
- On August 30, 2016, Crawford signed a written statement of maximum penalty and a written waiver and entered a guilty plea; the court later sentenced him to seven years plus three years post-release control.
- Crawford sought a delayed appeal and requested a complete transcript at state expense; this court granted the request, but the record transmitted on appeal did not include the change-of-plea transcript and no supplement was filed.
- Appellate counsel initially filed an Anders-type brief and withdrew; new counsel prosecuted the appeal and raised one assignment of error asserting the plea was unknowing, unintelligent, and involuntary because the trial court did not inform him a jury verdict must be unanimous.
- The trial court’s written plea forms and the judgment entry recited that Crawford was advised of constitutional rights and that his plea was voluntary and knowing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crawford's guilty plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered | The State: plea complied with Crim.R. 11; written waiver and judgment entry show voluntariness | Crawford: plea was unknowing and involuntary because court failed to advise that a jury verdict must be unanimous | Court: Affirmed; plea presumed valid absent transcript and unanimity advisement is not required |
| Whether failure to include change-of-plea transcript bars review | The State: appellant bears duty to provide transcript and show error | Crawford: transcript omission prevents review of court's colloquy | Court: Appellant failed to supply transcript, so appellate court presumes regularity of proceedings and cannot review alleged error |
| Whether trial court must advise a defendant that jury unanimity is required | The State: not required by Crim.R. 11 or Constitution | Crawford: lack of advisement meant plea was not knowing | Court: Not required; waiver of jury trial covers right without explaining unanimity, so no prejudice shown |
| Whether appellant demonstrated prejudice from any Rule 11 error | The State: no showing appellant would have refused plea | Crawford: argued possible prejudice from missing advisement | Court: No prejudice shown; appellant did not claim he would have proceeded to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (same principle applied under Ohio law)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (benchmarks for voluntariness of guilty pleas)
- State v. Fitzpatrick, 102 Ohio St.3d 321 (2004) (trial court must inform defendant of core constitutional rights but need not advise on jury unanimity)
- State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (2006) (rejecting claim that court must advise on juror unanimity before accepting plea)
- Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197 (1979) (appellant bears duty to provide record to show trial error)