State v. Simkins, 2019 Ohio 4369

On Sept. 13, 2017 Simkins crashed his motorcycle; officers found him intoxicated and medical bloodwork showed BAC above the legal limit.
He was charged with multiple traffic offenses; at arraignment he pleaded not guilty and later filed a pro se jury demand.
On Nov. 8 Simkins, assisted by a public-defender attorney acting as a "friend of the court," signed a waiver and pleaded no contest to amended charge of physical control (first-degree misdemeanor); other counts were dismissed.
The court accepted the plea, imposed a 180-day suspended jail term, ordered drug/alcohol testing, and assessed court costs.
Simkins filed a pro se post-plea motion to withdraw (alleging coercion, incompetence, and ineffective waiver of counsel); the trial court held a hearing and denied the motion.
The court of appeals affirmed: plea was valid under Traffic Rule 10, Simkins knowingly waived counsel, competency concerns were insufficient to invalidate the plea, and denial of plea withdrawal was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Was the no-contest plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered under Traf.R.10?	State: Signed plea form and oral colloquy (via friend-of-court) satisfied Traf.R.10; written advisals suffice for petty offenses.	Simkins: Court failed to personally advise him and he was confused from head trauma; plea therefore involuntary.	Held: Traf.R.10 complied with; written advisals on signed form plus colloquy were adequate for petty offense—plea valid.
2. Did Simkins validly waive his right to counsel and was waiver adequate given possible competency concerns?	State: Totality of circumstances (colloquy, plea form, repeated acknowledgments) show an effective waiver and understanding.	Simkins: He was confused from head trauma and did not knowingly waive counsel; friend-of-court improperly conveyed the plea and coerced him.	Held: Court found an effective waiver on the record and no evidence that head injury impaired understanding; waiver upheld.
3. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying post-sentence withdrawal of the plea (manifest injustice)?	State: No manifest injustice shown; credibility favored the court and friend-of-court denied coercion.	Simkins: Alleges coercion by friend-of-court and mental impairment, warranting withdrawal.	Held: No abuse of discretion; Simkins failed to establish manifest injustice.

State v. Watkins, 99 Ohio St.3d 12 (Traffic Rules apply to non-felony traffic offenses and explain effect of no-contest plea)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (written or oral admonitions may satisfy plea-advisal requirements)
State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 (trial court must ensure plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (defendant must understand consequences of a plea)
Gibson v. Ohio, 45 Ohio St.2d 366 (requirements for valid waiver of counsel)
Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708 (waiver must be made with full apprehension of charges, penalties, and defenses)
Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U.S. 25 (right to counsel applies when imprisonment may be imposed)
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (limits on right to appointed counsel in petty-offense contexts)
Alabama v. Shelton, 535 U.S. 654 (suspended jail sentence implicates right to counsel)