State v. McKeithen, 2019 Ohio 493

Appellant JaJuan McKeithen was indicted for first-degree felony possession of heroin with a cash forfeiture specification. He initially pleaded not guilty and moved to suppress recorded jailhouse telephone calls.
At a suppression hearing, the trial court denied the motion, finding McKeithen had no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls and had constructive notice of recordings via posted warning signs.
Before trial, McKeithen changed his plea to guilty at a March 8, 2017 plea hearing; the court conducted a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted a written plea agreement, Judicial Advice form, and the defendant’s responses.
The colloquy informed McKeithen he was waiving rights including the right to challenge evidence, call witnesses, subpoena witnesses, and appeal adverse motions; McKeithen acknowledged understanding.
McKeithen appealed, arguing (1) the court failed to properly advise him of the constitutional right to confront witnesses (Crim.R. 11), making his plea unknowing and involuntary, and (2) the suppression ruling admitting recorded calls was erroneous.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the colloquy and written materials sufficiently and intelligibly communicated the confrontation/other rights (strict compliance satisfied), and McKeithen waived appeal of pre-plea motions by pleading guilty; suppression argument rendered moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court failed to advise defendant of the constitutional right to confront witnesses under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)	The State argued the court’s colloquy (and written Judicial Advice) reasonably and intelligibly explained confrontation/related rights even if wording varied from the literal text of Rule 11.	McKeithen argued the court did not specifically use the phrase “right to confront witnesses,” so strict compliance with Crim.R. 11 was not met and the plea is invalid.	Affirmed: court found strict compliance satisfied because the colloquy and written forms conveyed the right in reasonably intelligible language (e.g., “right to challenge any evidence or testimony,” Judicial Advice referencing confrontation).
Whether the trial court erred in denying motion to suppress recorded jailhouse phone calls	The State argued McKeithen had at least constructive notice (posted warning) and no reasonable expectation of privacy in jail calls; institutional security justifies monitoring.	McKeithen argued recordings violated his privacy and should have been suppressed.	Affirmed/moot: because McKeithen knowingly waived appeal of prior motions by pleading guilty, and the suppression ruling was independently supportable due to notice and institutional security.

State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (establishes substantial vs. strict compliance analysis for Crim.R. 11 advisements)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (trial courts may explain constitutional rights in reasonably intelligible language; not always verbatim recitation required)
State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (use of ordinary words to describe constitutional rights can satisfy Crim.R. 11 strict compliance)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (permitting non-rote, intelligible explanations of rights in colloquy)