State v. Smith, 2019 Ohio 4115

Defendant Robert D. Smith was indicted for fourth-degree felony theft from a person in a protected class and pleaded guilty after a Crim.R. 11 colloquy; the plea was accepted and he was convicted.
At the plea hearing the trial court said it would consider intermittent jail (e.g., 14 on/14 off) to accommodate Smith’s childcare responsibilities only if Smith made a substantial or full restitution payment at sentencing.
At sentencing Smith’s counsel said Smith could not make restitution due to childcare/financial obligations; Smith declined to make a allocution when asked.
The trial court explained it would not grant intermittent jail because Smith made no showing of any restitution effort (stating that even a one-dollar showing would have prompted consideration).
The court imposed 75 days consecutive jail, 200 hours community service, and $1,350 restitution. Smith appealed, arguing his plea was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary (due to alleged inconsistent statements about the restitution requirement) and that he was denied the right to speak in mitigation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Whether Smith’s guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11 because of alleged confusion about the restitution required to obtain intermittent jail	Court correctly informed Smith that intermittent jail would be considered only if he showed substantial/full restitution; Smith understood and pleaded knowingly	Court later suggested only a nominal ($1) payment would have sufficed; Smith lacked that information and so his plea was not knowing	Court rejected Smith’s claim: the court required a genuine showing of restitution effort, not literally $1; Crim.R.11 was substantially/strictly complied with as applicable; no prejudice shown; plea valid
Whether Smith was denied his right to make a statement at sentencing (Crim.R. 32(A)(1))	Trial court afforded counsel the opportunity and personally asked Smith if he wished to speak; Smith answered "No"; later admonishment was for an interruption	Court denied Smith a meaningful opportunity to address the court	Court found compliance with Crim.R.32(A)(1): Smith declined to speak when asked and later interruptions justified admonishment

State v. Veney, 897 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R.11 requirements and standards for reviewing plea validity)
State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Cassell, 79 N.E.3d 588 (Ohio 2017) (appellate review of plea compliance)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (U.S. 1969) (guilty plea doctrine and requirements)
State v. Ballard, 423 N.E.2d 115 (Ohio 1981) (purpose of Crim.R.11 is to inform defendant so plea is voluntary)
State v. Nero, 564 N.E.2d 474 (Ohio 1990) (defendant must show prejudicial effect to overturn plea)