State v. Mays, 2013 Ohio 4031

Defendant Tracy Mays was charged with one count of domestic violence by information and executed a written waiver of presentment to a grand jury.
On the record at a pretrial hearing, Mays confirmed he had signed the waiver; the court did not orally advise him of the nature of the charge or his right to indictment.
Mays later entered a no contest plea to the information; the trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to 17 months in prison.
On appeal Mays raised two errors: (1) the court proceeded on an information without properly advising him of his grand-jury/indictment rights under Crim.R. 7(A) and R.C. 2941.021; (2) the court failed to explain the difference/effect of a guilty plea versus a no contest plea under Crim.R. 11.
The appellate court found the court did fail to comply with Crim.R. 7(A) but treated that as a nonjurisdictional, waivable defect because Mays pleaded no contest; the court then assessed whether Mays’s no contest plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary despite the Crim.R. 11 omission.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 7(A)/R.C. 2941.021 before proceeding by information	State: court had a signed waiver and the defendant confirmed waiver on the record	Mays: court did not advise him of the nature of the charge or his right to indictment, so waiver was invalid	Court: trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 7(A)/R.C. 2941.021 (procedural error)
Whether Mays’s no contest plea was knowing and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 despite the court’s failure to explain the effect of a no contest plea	State: any omission was harmless; plea-waiver doctrine applies and no prejudice shown	Mays: court did not explain difference/effect between guilty and no contest, so plea was not knowing/intelligent	Court: omission under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) was harmless; plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary; no prejudice shown

State v. Pepka, 125 Ohio St.3d 124 (explains indictment requirement under Ohio Constitution and that indictment must state essential facts)
Harris v. State, 125 Ohio St. 257 (early Ohio authority on indictment requirement)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (no contest plea waives nonjurisdictional defects)
State ex rel. Beauchamp v. Lazaroff, 77 Ohio St.3d 237 (manner of charging is procedural, not jurisdictional)
Wells v. Maxwell, 174 Ohio St. 198 (procedural nature of indictment/information distinction)
Stacy v. Van Coren, 18 Ohio St.2d 188 (plea waives defects in information)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (trial court must inform defendant of effect of plea by using Crim.R. 11(B) language)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (test for prejudice from Crim.R. 11 errors: whether plea would otherwise have been made)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (presumption that defendant who pleads guilty/no contest without asserting innocence understood effect of plea)