STATE OF OHIO v. DARRELL HARRIS
APPEAL NO. C-210391 TRIAL NO. B-2005938
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO
March 30, 2022
[Cite as State v. Harris, 2022-Ohio-1021.]
Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgment Appealed From Is: Reversed, Plea Vacated, and Cause Remanded
Michael J. Trapp, for Defendant-Appellant.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Darrell Harris appeals his felony conviction for domestic violence. In two assignments of error, Harris contends that his guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary because the trial court failed to strictly comply with
Facts and Procedure
{¶2} On June 14, 2021, Harris pleaded guilty to one count of third-degree felony domestic violence in violation of
THE COURT: All right. Do you understand you do have the right to have a trial by jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And that by signing this document you are giving up your right to that trial by jury?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Do you understand that you do have the right to require the prosecutor to bring in witnesses to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you understand you do have the right to bring in your own witnesses to testify on your behalf? THE DEFENDANT: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you understand that neither myself nor the prosecutor can require you to testify against yourself?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes, sir.
* * *
THE COURT: Do you have any questions before I accept your plea?
THE DEFENDANT: No, sir.
THE COURT: I will accept the plea of guilty. I’ve heard the facts. The finding is guilty.
{¶3} The court sentenced Harris to 36 months in prison, with credit for time served.
{¶4} Harris timely appealed, raising two assignments of error for our review. First, Harris contends that the trial court failed to advise him of his right to confrontation before accepting his plea. Second, Harris contends that the trial court failed to inform him that he was waiving his constitutional trial rights by entering a plea. As a result, Harris argues that his guilty plea was not entered knowingly and voluntarily. Harris asks us to vacate his guilty plea and sentence, and to remand the cause to the trial court.
Analysis
{¶5} In his first assignment of error, Harris argues that the trial court “fail[ed] to advise him at the time of his guilty plea that he was waving his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him.” The state argues that the
{¶6} “Before accepting a guilty or no-contest plea, the court must make the determinations and give the warnings required by
(c) Inform[ ] the defendant and determin[e] that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.
(Emphasis added.)
{¶7} “When explaining the constitutional rights that are being waived, the trial court must strictly comply with
{¶8} When a trial court fails to advise a defendant of a
{¶9} Harris argues that the trial court failed to advise him of his right to confrontation—a constitutional right—in its
Conclusion
{¶10} In light of the foregoing analysis, we sustain Harris’s first assignment of error, reverse the judgment of the trial court, vacate the plea, and remand the cause for further proceedings. Because our decision to sustain the first assignment of error is dispositive, the second assignment of error is moot and we decline to address it.
Judgment reversed, plea vacated, and cause remanded.
MYERS, P. J., and ZAYAS, J., concur.
Please note: The court has recorded its entry on the date of the release of this opinion.