State v. Jones, 2021 Ohio 1864

Indictment: Leo L. Jones, a Tier III sex offender, was charged with felony third-degree failure to provide change of address (R.C. 2950.05(F)(1)) after he was not living at a registered Knox County address from Aug. 19–Sept. 3, 2020.
Plea and forms: On Oct. 15, 2020 Jones, represented by counsel, pled guilty and signed a guilty-plea form and a plea-disclosure acknowledging rights waived and stating counsel "could have obtained witnesses by subpoena."
Colloquy: At the plea hearing the trial court advised Jones of constitutional rights and asked whether he understood that his attorney could subpoena witnesses to testify for his defense; Jones answered in the affirmative and said he had no questions.
Sentencing: The trial court accepted the plea, ordered a presentence investigation, and sentenced Jones to 24 months in jail; Jones appealed the Nov. 13, 2020 judgment entry.
Appellate contention: Jones argued his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made because the court failed to adequately advise him he was waiving the right to have compulsory process (i.e., compel subpoenas) under Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(c).
Trial-court record: The court relied on the oral colloquy language and the signed plea documents to conclude Jones was adequately informed and that the plea complied with Rule 11.

Issue	State's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(c) because the court’s colloquy did not explicitly state the defendant was waiving the right to compulsory process/compel subpoenas.	The colloquy language and signed plea forms reasonably and intelligibly advised Jones that he would be waiving the right to compulsory process; therefore Rule 11 was strictly complied with.	The court failed to strictly comply with Rule 11(C)(2)(c) by not explicitly informing Jones that he was waiving the right to have the court compel subpoenas (compulsory process).	The court found Rule 11(C)(2)(c) was strictly complied with: the colloquy’s language (and the signed plea forms) was reasonably intelligible about the right to compulsory process, so the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Engle v. State, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (a guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Ballard v. State, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (appellate review of plea compliance is de novo; purpose of Rule 11 is to inform defendant)
Barker v. State, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (2011) (trial court must inform defendant of rights in a reasonably intelligible manner; colloquy need not be verbatim)
Veney v. State, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (strict compliance required for advising of rights under Rule 11)
Miller v. State, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 (2020) (trial courts must strictly comply with Rule 11(C)(2)(c); failure is not harmless)