State v. Lusane, 2020 Ohio 4106

On Aug. 28, 2005 Lusane was stopped for speeding and charged with speeding, OVI (third within six years), and other traffic offenses; he pleaded guilty to OVI and other counts were dismissed per a plea agreement, with sentencing entered Dec. 27, 2005.
The Dec. 27, 2005 file lacked a transcript of any plea hearing; the court reporter had no notes and no App.R. 9(C) statement was supplied.
Lusane later filed multiple motions (2011 onward) seeking to vacate the plea, arguing no plea hearing occurred and procedural/constitutional safeguards were not observed; earlier motions were denied.
In a prior appeal this court held the 2005 sentencing entry did not satisfy Crim.R. 32(C) (it failed to set forth both fact of conviction and sentence) and remanded for a single, compliant entry.
On remand the trial court issued a revised sentencing entry stating Lusane pled guilty, finding him guilty and imposing the same sentence; Lusane appealed asserting four assignments of error (no plea/trial, no waiver of counsel, sentence imposed without presence, failure to comply with Crim.R.11(D)/Traf.R.10(C)).
The court affirmed: absent a transcript or App.R.9(C) statement, regularity of proceedings is presumed; under Watkins and related authority the State had no duty to produce a plea colloquy showing waiver of constitutional rights in serious misdemeanor traffic cases, and Lusane was represented by counsel so no waiver issue arose.

Issue	State's Argument	Lusane's Argument	Held
1. Conviction entered absent a plea/trial	Presume regularity of proceedings; a plea hearing occurred on Dec. 27, 2005	No plea hearing/transcript exists; conviction void without a plea colloquy	Affirmed — without transcript or App.R.9(C) statement, regularity presumed and plea accepted validly
2. Failure to waive right to counsel	Lusane had counsel throughout; counsel signed pretrial report reflecting plea agreement	No valid waiver of constitutional right to counsel so plea invalid	Affirmed — represented by counsel, so no waiver required
3. Sentence imposed without Lusane present (Crim.R.43)	Only ministerial act required on remand (issuing single compliant entry); no new hearing mandated by prior remand	Sentence entry imposed without him present violates Crim.R.43	Affirmed — remand did not require a new hearing; appellant cannot show a Rule 43 violation without record/transcript
4. Trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.11(D)/Traf.R.10(C) (no plea taken)	Watkins and Crim.R.11/Traf.R.10 require only that court inform of plea effect and determine voluntariness for serious misdemeanors; State not required to produce plea colloquy where transcript absent	No plea colloquy in record; court failed to satisfy Crim.R.11/Traf.R.10	Affirmed — on this record court presumes compliance; requirements met or presumed absent transcript/App.R.9(C) statement

State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (2003) (holds trial courts need not recite constitutional rights when accepting guilty pleas in misdemeanor/traffic cases; duty is limited to explaining plea effect and ensuring voluntariness)
Boykins v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) (establishes that a valid guilty plea requires an affirmative record of waiver of certain constitutional rights)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (discusses constitutional guarantees that must be explained to felony defendants entering guilty pleas)
Henderson v. Morgan, 426 U.S. 637 (1976) (explains that pleas may be involuntary when a defendant lacks understanding of the nature of charges)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (2007) (a court satisfies the "effect" requirement by defining a guilty plea as a complete admission of guilt)
State v. Armstrong, 101 N.E.3d 56 (11th Dist.) (appellate presumption of regularity where appellant provides no transcript or App.R.9(C) statement)