State v. Harris
2022 Ohio 1021
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2022Background
- Darrell Harris pleaded guilty on June 14, 2021 to one count of third-degree felony domestic violence and was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment (with credit for time served).
- At the plea hearing the court informed Harris of several rights (jury trial, requiring the prosecutor to bring in witnesses, calling defense witnesses, and the right not to testify) but did not orally mention the constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.
- Harris signed a plea form that included a written waiver of the right to confrontation, but the court’s oral colloquy omitted any explicit confrontation advisement.
- Harris appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing and voluntary because the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising him of his right to confrontation and by failing to inform him that he was waiving constitutional trial rights.
- The First District Court of Appeals held the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 by omitting an oral advisement of the confrontation right, declined to accept the written waiver as a substitute, sustained the first assignment of error, vacated the plea, reversed the judgment, and remanded. The second assignment of error was rendered moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising Harris of his right to confront witnesses | The court’s question about the prosecutor “bringing in witnesses” and the signed plea form put Harris on notice of the confrontation right | The court never orally advised Harris of his constitutional right to confront witnesses; omission makes plea constitutionally infirm | Court held the oral colloquy did not convey the confrontation right; strict compliance was not satisfied; plea vacated and case remanded |
| Whether a written plea form can cure an oral omission regarding Crim.R. 11 rights | The plea form’s written waiver of confrontation clarifies any ambiguity in the colloquy and satisfies the record as a whole | Strict compliance requires an oral advisement; a written waiver cannot substitute for an omitted oral warning | Court held a written waiver does not satisfy strict compliance when the oral colloquy omits the right; the written form did not cure the omission |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must give the warnings required by Crim.R. 11 before accepting plea)
- State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447, 151 N.E.3d 617 (Ohio 2020) (reaffirmed strict compliance requirement for advising constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 953 N.E.2d 826 (Ohio 2011) (where colloquy is ambiguous, courts may consult the record; but ambiguity is distinct from an omitted right)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1981) (trial court must orally advise defendant in a reasonably intelligible manner of rights being waived)
- State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85, 814 N.E.2d 51 (Ohio 2004) (failure to advise a defendant of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights renders the plea constitutionally infirm)