State v. Miller
2018 Ohio 843
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Shawn M. Miller was indicted on multiple counts including attempted murder, aggravated arson, arson, felonious assault, and breaking and entering; he agreed to plead guilty to one aggravated arson, one arson, and one felonious assault in exchange for nolle prosequi on the remaining counts.
- At the plea hearing the trial court explained Miller’s constitutional trial rights (jury trial, presumption of innocence, burden of proof, right to remain silent, right to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses) and Miller acknowledged understanding each.
- The trial court did not expressly tell Miller that by pleading guilty he was waiving those constitutional rights nor explicitly ask whether he understood that pleading guilty waived them.
- The court accepted Miller’s guilty pleas and sentenced him to an aggregate eight-year prison term; Miller appealed arguing the pleas were involuntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).
- The appellate majority held the trial court failed to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) because it did not ensure Miller understood that his guilty plea waived the specified constitutional rights, vacated the pleas, reversed and remanded; one judge dissented, arguing the colloquy sufficiently communicated the waiver without “magic words.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court must expressly inform a defendant that a guilty plea waives the Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) constitutional rights | State: The court must ensure the defendant understands rights; strict compliance required for those constitutional rights | Miller: Court explained the rights and defendant understood them; explicit use of the word “waive” is not required | The court held strict compliance required and reversed because the court failed to ensure Miller understood his plea waived those rights |
| Standard of review for Crim.R. 11(C) compliance | State: Compliance should be judged under controlling precedent requiring strict compliance for constitutional rights | Miller: Substantial compliance suffices where the record shows understanding | Court applied de novo review and required strict compliance for the waiver of constitutional rights under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) |
| Whether a colloquy that explains rights in the negative (rights if you go to trial) satisfies Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) | State: The record must show the defendant understood waiver of rights by pleading guilty | Miller: Explaining rights in terms of what defendant keeps if he goes to trial sufficiently conveys waiver | Majority: Insufficient — must ensure understanding of waiver; Dissent: sufficient under totality of circumstances |
| Remedy when court fails to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) | State: Failure invalidates the plea | Miller: N/A | Court held the plea is invalid and remanded to vacate the guilty pleas |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and advise a defendant that a plea waives specified constitutional rights)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11’s purpose is to inform defendants so pleas are knowing, voluntary, and intelligent; recommends using the rule’s language)
- State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
- State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350, 872 N.E.2d 279 (Ohio 2007) (no magic words required, but a defendant must acknowledge waiving rights while in court and in presence of counsel)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (a guilty plea must be voluntary and intelligent; court must ensure waiver of constitutional rights)