State v. Hayward
2017 Ohio 8611
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Walter L. Hayward Jr. pled guilty on January 14, 2016 to: one count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (2nd-degree felony), two counts of grand theft (4th-degree felonies), and fifteen counts of theft (5th-degree felonies).
- Trial court imposed an aggregate 8-year prison term and ordered $87,359.99 in restitution to automotive dealerships.
- Hayward appealed, arguing his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
- Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) requires the court to personally inform a felony defendant that a guilty plea waives certain constitutional rights, including the right to a jury trial.
- The written plea form Hayward signed expressly referenced the right to a jury trial; the court’s oral colloquy referenced a right to a "speedy and public trial" and later discussed instructing "the jury" regarding the defendant’s decision not to testify.
- The Sixth District affirmed, finding the court’s combination of the written waiver and oral colloquy reasonably explained the right to a jury trial and thus complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) before accepting a guilty plea | State: The court’s colloquy with defendant and the written plea form together satisfied Rule 11 requirements | Hayward: The court failed to orally inform him he was waiving the right to a jury trial, so strict compliance was lacking and plea is invalid | Court: Affirmed — combination of written waiver and oral references (including mention of a jury) sufficiently and reasonably informed defendant of the jury-trial right; strict verbatim recitation not required |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (explains Rule 11(C)(2)(c) requires advising of constitutional rights and that record must show defendant understood waivers)
- State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (Ohio 2011) (reiterates strict compliance requirement but permits non-verbatim explanations if intelligible to defendant)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (holds exact wording unnecessary where record shows court explained rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to defendant)