State v. Jabbaar, 2013 Ohio 1655

Defendant Ali Jabbaar was indicted in June 2011 on kidnapping with a sexual-motivation specification and three counts of rape with SVP specifications, plus firearm specs; he pleaded not guilty and the case proceeded to trial.
A pretrial four days before trial featured the state’s plea offer placed on the record; Jabbaar initially indicated a preference for trial.
The prosecutor summarized the evidence, including a videotape of Jabbaar with the victim, the victim’s testimony, DNA evidence, and Jabbaar’s possession of a firearm, and linked these to the charges.
The trial judge discussed potential sentences and stated that pleading could yield substantially less time than trial, potentially “life” versus “time” in prison for the counts.
During the pretrial and later plea colloquy, the judge questioned Jabbaar about the plea, urged consideration of a plea, and ensured a later, full Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy occurred four days later.
Jabbaar ultimately pled guilty to amended counts (kidnapping with a three-year firearm spec. and sexual-motivation spec., and one count of rape) and was sentenced to 13 years; the defense challenged the voluntariness of the plea on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made.	Jabbaar argues the judge coerced the plea by active participation.	Jabbaar contends the judge’s comments and pressure rendered the plea involuntary.	No coercion; plea affirmed as voluntary.

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (necessity of knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea)
State v. Byrd, 63 Ohio St.2d 288 (1980) (judge’s coercive involvement analyzed; not per se invalid)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) (importance of record showing defendant’s awareness of plea offer)