State v. Hayes, 2016 Ohio 2794

Dustin T. Hayes was indicted on seven counts alleging sexual conduct with a 12‑year‑old occurring Oct–Dec 2012; he initially pleaded not guilty.
On June 12, 2013, Hayes entered a written guilty plea to one count of rape; the court accepted the plea and nolled remaining counts.
Sentencing occurred September 9, 2013; Hayes received an indefinite 10 years to life term.
Hayes sought and ultimately obtained leave to file a delayed appeal to challenge the plea colloquy under Crim.R. 11.
His sole assignment of error: the trial court failed to properly inform him of his constitutional right to remain silent during the Crim.R. 11(C) colloquy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) by advising Hayes of his privilege against self‑incrimination	State: the court’s advisement that Hayes “is not required to testify against yourself” satisfied the rule	Hayes: the court failed to tell him he had the right to remain silent throughout trial and that silence could not be used against him, so strict compliance was lacking	The court affirmed: the advisement that he could not be compelled to testify reasonably informed Hayes of his right to remain silent and complied with Ballard/Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).

State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (discusses standard for reviewing Crim.R. 11 compliance)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (requires reasonably intelligible on‑the‑record dialogue for Crim.R. 11)
State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (constitutional requirement that pleas be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (constitutional rights must be made known before accepting a guilty plea)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (distinguishes strict versus substantial compliance under Crim.R. 11)