State v. Deselms, 2022 Ohio 3769

Appellant Kyle A. Deselms originally indicted on 24 counts of sexual offenses against minors (2007–2012); two first‑degree rape counts (Count 1: by force; Count 3: victim <13) were the only counts to which he ultimately pled guilty.
On September 9, 2021, Deselms executed a written plea agreement pleading guilty to Counts One and Three; the state agreed to dismiss remaining counts.
Deselms filed a pro se motion to withdraw the plea on September 20, 2021; his original counsel withdrew and new counsel was appointed.
On October 25, 2021 the parties amended the agreement to a jointly recommended aggregate sentence of 20 years to life; the trial court conducted a renewed Crim.R. 11 colloquy, accepted the guilty pleas, and imposed the agreed sentence.
Deselms argued on appeal his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because (1) he showed confusion/asked for mercy during the colloquy and (2) the trial court did not personally explain the elements of the rape offenses on the record (counsel explained them off‑the‑record).
The Sixth District affirmed, finding the record showed Deselms understood the plea, waived rights knowingly, suffered no prejudice, and that counsel’s on‑record representations and the prosecutor’s factual recitation satisfied Crim.R. 11 requirements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Deselms’ expressed "confusion" and request for mercy rendered his plea unknowing/ involuntary	State: Plea was valid — court clarified the agreement, explained rights and penalties, and Deselms repeatedly affirmed understanding and voluntariness	Deselms: Statements of confusion and a plea for mercy show he lacked understanding and did not enter plea voluntarily	Court: Rejected — statements were clarified on the record, Deselms thereafter affirmed understanding; no prejudicial effect shown
Whether the trial court’s failure to personally recite/explain offense elements on the record invalidated the plea	State: No error — defense counsel explained elements, prosecutor recited facts, and record shows Deselms understood charges	Deselms: Trial court should have personally explained elements; off‑record explanation by counsel is insufficient	Court: Rejected — nonconstitutional point requires prejudice and none shown; counsel’s representation and the state’s factual recitation satisfy Crim.R.11 requirements

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (constitutional requirement that guilty pleas be voluntary)
State v. Ballard, 423 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1981) (purpose of Crim.R. 11 is to ensure defendant can make an intelligent voluntary plea)
State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 386 (Ohio 2020) (distinguishes constitutional and nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 components; nonconstitutional errors require prejudice)
State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (prejudice requirement for nonconstitutional Crim.R.11 errors)
State v. Clark, 893 N.E.2d 462 (Ohio 2008) (presumption of involuntariness when constitutional rights not explained)
State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (prejudicial effect standard for plea challenges)
State v. Fitzpatrick, 810 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio 2004) (acceptance of defense counsel’s representation that elements were explained to accused)