State v. Heard, 2017 Ohio 8310

In Dec. 2015 Carlton Devon Heard was indicted on multiple counts including attempted murder, felonious assault, aggravated robbery, robbery, carrying concealed weapons, and weapons-under-disability; most counts included firearm specifications. Heard was on probation in a separate carrying-concealed-weapons case when charged.
The case had multiple pretrials and three prior trial settings; the date was continued twice at defense request and once at the state’s request.
On the day of trial, counsel reported that Heard had just provided a name of an alleged “real shooter” and requested a continuance to investigate; the prosecutor objected.
The trial judge rejected a continuance, personally proposed a plea offer (14 years concurrent) to Heard, threatened that a conviction after trial would yield much harsher consecutive sentences, and pressured Heard with an ultimatum (jury arriving; deal off if jury enters).
Heard pleaded no contest after a brief exchange and was sentenced to 14 years; on appeal he argued the plea was coerced and Crim.R. 11(C) requirements (explanation of the effect of a no contest plea) were not satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial judge’s active role and threats coerced Heard’s plea	State argued the plea was voluntary and accepted after the court advised rights and penalties	Heard argued the judge’s threats, predictions of harsher post-trial sentences, and ultimatum coerced his plea	Court: Plea was coerced; judge’s active participation and ultimatum rendered plea involuntary — vacated
Whether the court complied with Crim.R. 11(C) by informing Heard of the effect of a no-contest plea	State implied Crim.R. 11 warnings and penalty discussion were sufficient	Heard argued the court never explained the specific effect of a no-contest plea (that it is an admission of the truth of the indictment’s facts but not an admission of guilt)	Court: Complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C); no explanation of no-contest effect — plea must be vacated
Whether claims of judicial bias and ineffective assistance require separate relief	State did not prevail on preserved issues because plea stands	Heard asserted bias and that counsel was ineffective for not objecting	Court: Those assignments rendered moot by reversal of plea; did not decide them

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (constitutional requirement that pleas be knowing, voluntary, and intelligent)
State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288 (judicial participation in plea bargaining risks coercion and is strongly discouraged)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (distinguishing Crim.R. 11 requirements for constitutional vs. nonconstitutional rights)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (requirement to advise defendant of the effect of a no-contest plea)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (prejudice inquiry when trial court substantially but not fully complies with Crim.R. 11)
State v. Szarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (complete noncompliance with Crim.R. 11 requires vacatur of plea)