2021 Ohio 1431
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- Darez Leon Harris was indicted for third-degree felony failure to comply with a police officer after fleeing a stop, causing a high-speed pursuit.
- On June 22, 2020 Harris pled guilty in exchange for dismissal of an unrelated failure-to-comply charge; no sentence agreement was reached and a PSI was ordered.
- During the plea colloquy the trial court did not orally advise Harris of the maximum possible penalty for the offense, though the written plea form listed it.
- On July 17, 2020 the court sentenced Harris to 36 months imprisonment, suspended his license, and imposed costs; Harris immediately orally moved to withdraw his plea.
- The trial court denied the oral post-sentence motion, ruling Harris had been advised of the maximum penalty and was simply having a change of heart.
- The appellate court found the trial court relied on an incorrect factual finding and that the plea colloquy completely failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); it reversed the denial of the motion, vacated the guilty plea, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Harris's post‑sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without an evidentiary hearing | Trial court reasonably denied the motion because Harris's claims were bare, known at time of plea, and he showed only a change of heart | Harris contended he did not understand the plea and there was insufficient evidence, warranting withdrawal | Reversed: court abused discretion because it relied on an incorrect factual finding (that Harris had been told the maximum penalty) when denying the motion |
| Whether the guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) where the court failed to orally advise the maximum possible penalty | The State pointed to the signed written plea form as evidence Harris knew the maximum penalty | Harris argued he was not personally advised at the plea hearing and thus did not knowingly waive rights or understand consequences | Vacated plea: complete omission of oral advisement of the maximum penalty at colloquy constituted total failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), so no prejudice showing required; plea not knowing/voluntary |
Key Cases Cited
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under due process)
- State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial court must personally address defendant under Crim.R. 11 to ensure plea is knowing and voluntary)
- State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (distinguishes strict compliance requirements and exceptions for Crim.R. 11 failures)
- State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (2008) (complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 eliminates defendant's burden to show prejudice)
- State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (defendant not entitled to vacate plea absent prejudice from Crim.R. 11 noncompliance, absent exceptions)
- State v. Rogers, 157 N.E.3d 142 (Ohio App. 2020) (total omission of a distinct component of maximum penalty at colloquy constitutes complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a))
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (focus on whether trial court's oral reference to rights was reasonably intelligible to defendant)