State v. Miller (Slip Opinion), 151 N.E.3d 617

Shawn Miller pleaded guilty in Cuyahoga County pursuant to a plea agreement; the trial court explained constitutional trial rights but did not expressly tell him that a guilty plea would waive those rights.
The trial court accepted the pleas and sentenced Miller to an aggregate eight-year term plus postrelease control.
On appeal the Eighth District vacated the pleas, relying on State v. Veney to require strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and concluding the court failed to specifically advise Miller that the plea waived his trial rights.
The state appealed, arguing substantial compliance was enough so long as the defendant understood the substance of the rights lost; Miller argued the issue was not preserved and that strict compliance was required.
The Ohio Supreme Court accepted review to resolve whether strict or substantial compliance applies and what strict compliance requires.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) requires strict compliance but held strict compliance does not demand particular words; the court must orally advise the defendant, in language reasonably intelligible to that defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule—and it found the plea colloquy here satisfied that standard, reinstating Miller’s convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standard for Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) compliance (strict vs. substantial)	State: substantial compliance suffices if defendant understands the rights lost	Miller: strict compliance required; trial court failed to advise waiver	Court: strict compliance required (reaffirming Veney) but strictness means advising in a reasonably intelligible way, not verbatim wording
Whether specific words (e.g., "waive") are required	Colloquy need not use particular words so long as defendant understands effect	Court must use synonyms like "waive" or equivalent to show loss of rights	Court: no requirement to use particular words; plain-language explanation that conveys loss of rights suffices
Whether the trial court’s actual colloquy satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)	State: judge explained rights in plain English; Miller understood	Miller: absence of explicit waiver language made plea invalid	Court: colloquy was reasonably intelligible and conveyed that pleading would foreclose trial rights; strict compliance satisfied; pleas reinstated
Harmless-error vs. automatic/ plain-error review for failures under (C)(2)(c)	State: form over substance; errors should be reviewed for prejudice	Miller: failure to strictly comply invalidates plea (no harmless error)	Court: reaffirmed Veney—failure to strictly comply with constitutional advisements is not subject to harmless-error review

State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (2008) (trial courts must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and orally advise defendant that plea waives listed constitutional rights)
State v. Ballard, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981) (record must show trial court explained rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to defendant; exact wording not required)
State v. Griggs, 814 N.E.2d 51 (2004) (failure to inform of constitutional rights invalidates plea; nonconstitutional advisory failures require prejudice)
State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (discussing prejudice requirement for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 defects)