State v. Thompson, 2019 Ohio 5407

John C. Thompson pleaded guilty in two Portage County cases to multiple theft-related felonies and passing bad checks; the trial court accepted written pleas and held a plea colloquy.
The court sentenced Thompson to an aggregate 10-year prison term, ordered $512,852.51 restitution, and advised possible post-release control.
Thompson appealed, asserting (1) the trial court failed at the oral plea colloquy to advise him that he was waiving his right to a jury trial as required by Crim.R. 11(C), and (2) the court imposed consecutive sentences without required R.C. 2929.14(C) findings.
At the plea hearing the court repeatedly told Thompson he was "giving up [his] right to a trial" and described trial rights (burden of proof, confrontation, subpoena, right not to testify) but never used the word "jury." Thompson had signed written plea forms that expressly stated he waived his right to a jury trial.
The majority held the oral colloquy was insufficient under State v. Veney because the court did not orally inform Thompson that he was waiving the right to a jury trial, and the court could not rely exclusively on written waivers; the pleas were invalid and the judgment was reversed and remanded.
A dissent argued the word "trial," the totality of the colloquy, and the written plea form made the waiver reasonably intelligible (invoking Barker), so the convictions should have been affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the guilty pleas are invalid because the trial court failed to orally advise that defendant was waiving his right to a jury trial under Crim.R. 11(C).	The omission was at most an ambiguity; the written plea form and overall colloquy clarify the waiver so the plea is valid.	The court never orally informed him he was waiving the right to a jury trial; Veney requires an oral advisement and written waivers cannot substitute.	Reversed: plea invalid. Under Veney/Ballard the court must orally advise a defendant about the jury-trial right; written waiver alone is insufficient.
Whether consecutive sentences are unlawful for lack of R.C. 2929.14(C) findings.	Consecutive findings were made per the parties’ joint recommendation.	Trial court failed to make the statutory findings on the record.	Not reached on merits; second assignment overruled as unripe because the plea was invalid and the sentence vacated.

Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (trial court must advise defendant of rights; practical intelligibility standard)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (trial court must orally inform defendant of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) rights; cannot rely solely on outside sources)
State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 (ambiguities in colloquy may be clarified by record; totality-of-circumstances review)
State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, voluntary)
McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (focus on realities, not ritual, in plea colloquy compliance)
State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (Crim.R. 11(C)(2) encompasses Boykin protections)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (failure to inform renders plea presumptively invalid)
State v. Lomax, 114 Ohio St.3d 350 (Sixth Amendment jury right referenced)
State v. Tate, 59 Ohio St.2d 50 (state constitutional guarantee of jury trial)