State v. OneillState v. Oneill
{¶1} Cody Michael Oneill appeals from a judgment of the Athens County Common Pleas Court convicting him, following a guilty plea, of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer and forgery.2 Oneill presents one assignment of error asserting that the trial court failed to advise him of his constitutional right to a jury trial, so his plea is invalid because it violated
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶2} In September 2025, Oneill was indicted on three counts: (1) Count One – failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony, with a forfeiture specification for a motorcycle; (2) Count Two – using sham legal process, a fourth-degree felony; and (3) Count Three – forgery, a fifth-degree felony. He initially pleaded not guilty, and during the arraignment hearing, the court stated that a jury trial was set for January 20, 2026. On December 23, 2025, Oneill executed a written guilty plea to Count One without the specification and Count Three. The State agreed to move to dismiss the specification and Count Two. The parties agreed to waive a PSI and jointly recommend a sentence of three years of community control with standard conditions, a three-year ODL suspension backdated to August 22, 2025, and that Oneill’s property be returned. Relevant to this appeal, the written guilty plea states: “I understand by pleading guilty I give up my right to a jury trial or court trial, where I could see and have my attorney question witnesses against me, and where I could use the power of the Court to call witnesses to testify for me.”
{¶3} The trial court conducted a change of plea hearing. During the plea colloquy, the court asked Oneill whether he had a chance to go over the written guilty plea with counsel, had a chance to ask counsel any questions he had, and believed he understood the written guilty plea. Oneill answered each question in the affirmative. The
By the judge: You’re waiving constitutional and other important rights by pleading guilty, let’s go over those. First and foremost do you understand that you’re giving up your right to a Trial by pleading guilty?
By the defendant: Yes.
By the judge: Do you understand that you’re giving up the right to have [defense counsel] question witnesses?
By the defendant: Yes.
By the judge: Do you understand that you could force witness to testify you if necessary [sic]? You have to answer out loud.
By the defendant: Yes.
By the judge: Do you understand if you would decided [sic] to proceed to Trial you would not have to take the witness stand since you can’t be forced to testify against yourself?
By the defendant: Yes.
By the judge: Do you understand that you’re waiving your right to force the prosecutor to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?
By the defendant: Yes sir.
The court accepted the guilty plea and immediately proceeded to sentencing. The same day, the court issued a judgment entry of guilty in which it indicated it had accepted the plea but did not memorialize the sentence.
{¶4} On January 6, 2026, the court entered the judgment of conviction. The judgment entry states that on the State’s motion, the court amended Count One to remove the specification and dismissed Count Two. The court accepted Oneill’s guilty plea to Count One, as amended, and Count Three. The court sentenced him to three years of community control on each count, to be served concurrently, imposed a three-year
{¶5} This appeal followed.
II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
{¶6} Oneill presents one assignment of error: “Because the trial court failed to advise Appellant of his constitutional right to a jury trial the plea is invalid because it violated
III. VALIDTY OF GUILTY PLEA
A. Positions of the Parties
{¶7} In his sole assignment of error, Oneill contends the trial court failed to advise him of his constitutional right to a jury trial, so his plea is invalid because it violated
{¶8} The State contends that “[w]hen considering the totality of the matter, the trial court adequately ensured Appellant was advised of his constitutional rights, including his right to a jury trial.” The State maintains that in Ballard, the Supreme Court ruled against the position that a plea is invalidated because the trial court did not say the specific phrase “jury trial” during the plea colloquy. The State claims Ballard reasoned that the failure to say “jury” before “trial” did not invalidate a guilty plea because of the totality of the colloquy between the court, defendant, and defense counsel. In addition, the State claims Ballard recognized a “written plea form may be considered when weighing the totality of the circumstance surrounding a plea and whether such is proper.” And the State asserts that Ballard contained an exchange “nearly identical” to the one here, which “was found to be sufficient.”
{¶9} The State maintains that this case is distinguishable from Morgan for several reasons. First, the defendant in Morgan pled to the indictment as charged, and here, the State dismissed one count and the specification, which “demonstrates that Appellant fully understood and appreciated the nature of the proceedings and worked to a resolution that was advantageous to him.” Second, unlike in Morgan, in this case, the trial court reviewed the written plea with Oneill “page by page,” “methodically addressing each section through to the end,” and the written plea stated he understood he was giving up his right to a jury trial. And third, unlike the defendant in Morgan, after sentencing, Oneill filed a pro se motion to withdraw his plea but “never suggested he did not understand his rights including that of a jury trial.” The State claims “[t]his is supported
B. Legal Principles
{¶10} “A defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” State v. Gowdy, 2025-Ohio-5575, ¶ 18, citing State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10. “And ‘[f]ailure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio Constitution.’” Id., quoting State v. Engle, 1996-Ohio-179, ¶ 7. See generally State v. Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, ¶ 10, quoting State v. Bishop, 2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 10 (lead opinion) (“‘Due process requires that a defendant’s plea be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; otherwise, the defendant’s plea is invalid’“). “‘An appellate court determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily conducts a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards.’” State v. Sillman, 2024-Ohio-3363, ¶ 22 (4th Dist.), quoting State v. Moore, 2014-Ohio-3024, ¶ 13 (4th Dist.).
{¶11} “When reviewing guilty pleas, we focus on ‘whether the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant understood the consequences of his [or her] plea.’” Gowdy at ¶ 19, quoting Dangler at ¶ 12, citing State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15-16, State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 26, and State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 19. A defendant challenging his or her guilty plea “‘on the basis that it was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made’ is generally not entitled to have [the] plea vacated unless [the defendant] demonstrates that he [or she] was prejudiced by the failure of the trial court to comply with the provisions of
{¶12} The Supreme Court has stated that
in undertaking this review, the questions to be answered are:
(1) has the trial court complied with the relevant provision[s] of [
Crim.R. 11 ]? (2) if the court has not complied fully with the rule, is the purported failure of a type that excuses a defendant from the burden of demonstrating prejudice? and (3) if a showing of prejudice is required, has the defendant met that burden?
(Bracketed material in original.) Id. at ¶ 22, quoting Dangler at ¶ 17.
{¶13} “‘
(2) In felony cases the court . . . shall not accept a plea of guilty . . . without first addressing the defendant personally . . . and doing all of the following:
. . .
(c) Informing the defendant and determining 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.
{¶14} “‘Failure to literally comply with the language of
{¶15} The guilty plea is invalid because the trial court accepted the plea without first orally informing Oneill that by the plea, he was waiving his right to a jury trial as required by
{¶16} This case is similar to Morgan and distinguishable from Ballard. In Morgan, during the plea colloquy, the trial court asked the defendant if he understood that he was giving up his “‘right to a trial’” but did not orally inform him that he was waiving the right to a jury trial or reference a jury at all. Morgan at ¶ 12. The State, relying on Ballard, asserted that the plea was valid because the court made repeated references during the colloquy to the written plea agreement, which stated that the defendant was waiving the right to a jury trial, and the defendant was informed multiple times at a prior hearing that the case could be set for a jury trial. Id. at ¶ 13. In rejecting this argument, we explained that in Ballard, the Supreme Court “determined that the trial court explained the defendant’s constitutional right in a reasonable way because the trial court informed Ballard during the colloquy that neither the judge nor the jury could draw any inference if the defendant refused to testify.” (Emphasis in original.) Id. at ¶ 14. We explained that “immediately after that statement, the trial court informed the defendant that he was entitled to a fair
Unlike Ballard, Morgan was not orally informed during the plea colloquy that he was waiving his constitutional right to a jury trial, nor did the trial court obtain his verbal acknowledgement of that specific waiver at the plea hearing. Instead, the State is relying on outside sources, which the Court in Veney has clearly established that the trial court cannot do. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, at ¶ 29. Additionally, this case is very similar to State v. Hermes, wherein the Sixth District determined that the trial court’s references to the plea agreement were not sufficient when the trial court only advised Hermes of his right to “trial” as opposed to his right to a “jury trial.” 2023-Ohio-2011, ¶ 24 (6th Dist.). “We cannot presume a waiver of these * * * important federal rights from a silent record.” Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969). “When the record confirms that the trial court failed to perform this duty, the defendant’s plea is constitutionally infirm, making it presumptively invalid.” Veney at ¶ 29, citing State v. Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶ 12, and Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d at 481.
(Ellipsis in original.) Id. at ¶ 15. Thus, we held that “the trial court plainly failed to orally inform Morgan of his constitutional right to a jury trial” and that “[t]his failure to strictly comply with
{¶17} In this case, as in Morgan, and unlike in Ballard, the trial court plainly failed to orally inform Oneill of his constitutional right to a jury trial at the time of entering his guilty plea. The State’s attempt to distinguish this case from Morgan is unpersuasive. As in Morgan, the State relies on an outside source, the written guilty plea, to show notification of that right. But even if the trial court’s review of the written guilty plea with Oneill was more thorough than in Morgan, the court still failed to orally explain or refer to the right to a jury trial in a manner reasonably intelligible to Oneill. The fact that Oneill was informed of a jury trial date at an earlier hearing is immaterial; the defendant must be
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
CAUSE REMANDED.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT IS REVERSED and the CAUSE IS REMANDED. Appellee shall pay the costs.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Athens County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
If a stay of execution of sentence and release upon bail has been previously granted by the trial court or this court, it is temporarily continued for a period not to exceed 60 days upon the bail previously posted. The purpose of a continued stay is to allow appellant to file with the Supreme Court of Ohio an application for a stay during the pendency of proceedings in that court. If a stay is continued by this entry, it will terminate at the earlier of the expiration of the 60-day period, or the failure of the appellant to file a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio in the 45-day appeal period set forth in the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Additionally, if the Supreme Court of Ohio dismisses the appeal prior to expiration of 60 days, the stay will terminate as of the date of such dismissal.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Smith, P.J. & Abele, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.
For the Court
BY: ________________________
Michael D. Hess, Judge
NOTICE TO COUNSEL
Pursuant to Local Rule No. 22, this document constitutes a final judgment entry and the time period for further appeal commences from the date of filing with the clerk.