2012 Ohio 360
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Singleton was charged in January 2011 with aggravated robbery, three kidnapping counts, three theft counts, and weapon under disability, each with firearm specs and notices; all others were nolled in a negotiated plea.
- Singleton pled guilty to aggravated robbery and one kidnapping count in exchange for the state deleting all specifications and nolling remaining charges.
- Trial court sentenced Singleton to six years in prison following the plea.
- Singleton appeals claiming Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was not strictly complied with, rendering the plea involuntary.
- The State contends the court adequately advised Singleton about rights and burden of proof under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) despite not using exact language.
- Defense counsel had previously explained the facts and consequences to Singleton and advised him of the rights he would waive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Crim.R. 11 compliance regarding rights waiver | Singleton asserts lack of strict Crim.R. 11(C)(2) compliance. | Singleton argues the court failed to use exact phrasing required. | Plea valid; court satisfied the rights were explained and understood. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008-Ohio-5200) (strict compliance not required to use exact wording; must be intelligible)
- State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (proper inquiry is intelligible, not verbatim Crim.R. 11(C)(2) language)
- State v. Burston, 2010-Ohio-5120 (8th Dist. No. 93645 (2010)) (record must show defendant understood rights; strict language not required)