State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 14 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2018-0948,2018-0948
• Citation: 151 N.E.3d 617,159 Ohio St.3d 447,2020 Ohio 1420
• Parties: The STATE of Ohio, Appellant, v. MILLER, Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

159 Ohio St.3d 447

151 N.E.3d 617

2020 Ohio 1420

The STATE of Ohio, Appellant,

v.MILLER, Appellee.

No. 2018-0948

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted December 11, 2019

Decided April 14, 2020.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Gregory Ochocki, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellant.

Patrick J. Milligan Co., L.P.A., and Patrick J. Milligan, Beachwood; and James E. Kocka, Broadview Heights, for appellee.

Fischer, J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked whether trial courts in felony cases must strictly comply with the plea colloquy required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and, if so, whether strict compliance requires that the colloquy include particular words. We reaffirm that a trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) ; however, this does not mean that the trial court must use the particular words stated in the rule. Instead, to strictly comply with the rule, the trial court must orally advise the defendant, in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellee, Shawn Miller, pleaded guilty to a number of crimes in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. During the plea hearing, the trial court enumerated the constitutional rights Miller would be entitled to if he elected to go to trial and Miller affirmatively stated that he understood those constitutional rights. The trial court did not, however, specifically ask Miller whether he understood that he was waiving those rights by pleading guilty. The trial court accepted Miller's guilty pleas and sentenced him to an aggregate eight-year prison term and three years of postrelease control.

{¶ 3} On appeal to the Eighth District Court of Appeals, Miller argued that the pleas should be vacated because the trial court had failed to ensure that he understood that by pleading guilty he was waiving the constitutional rights enumerated in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c).

{¶ 4} In a two-to-one decision, the court of appeals vacated Miller's guilty pleas, reversed his convictions, and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. Applying this court's decision in State v. Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, the Eighth District concluded that the trial court was required to strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and that in order to strictly comply, the court had to specifically advise Miller that he would waive his constitutional trial rights by pleading guilty. The court of appeals acknowledged that common sense dictates that by pleading guilty, a defendant will not be able to exercise those constitutional rights; however, because the court of appeals concluded that the trial court had failed to abide by Veney 's strict-compliance standard when it failed to advise Miller that a guilty plea waives those constitutional rights, the court vacated Miller's pleas, reversed his convictions, and remanded the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

{¶ 5} The dissenting judge stated that the totality of the circumstances indicated that Miller knew what rights he would lose by pleading guilty and what rights he would have if he chose to go to trial. Because she concluded that the trial court had "meaningfully conveyed the substance of Miller's rights," she concluded that the trial court had complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). 2018-Ohio-843, 2018 WL 1217171, ¶ 27-28 (Stewart, J., dissenting).

{¶ 6} This court accepted jurisdiction over the state's proposition of law: "A reviewing court applies a substantial compliance standard in determining whether criminal defendants understand they are waiving their constitutional trial rights when entering a plea in a felony case." See 153 Ohio St.3d 1502, 2018-Ohio-4288, 109 N.E.3d 1259.

II. Analysis

{¶ 7} The state argues that the Eighth District's decision elevates form over substance. It asserts that so long as a defendant understands that pleading guilty to an offense waives his or her constitutional trial rights, the trial court has complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). It accordingly urges the court to adopt a substantial-compliance standard with respect to Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c)'s requirement that a trial court determine whether a defendant understands that by pleading guilty he will waive his constitutional trial rights. Adopting the position of the dissenting opinion below, the state urges this court to conclude that by advising Miller of the constitutional rights he would have if he chose to go to trial, the trial court notified Miller that he would be waiving those rights if he opted not to go to trial and thus satisfied Crim.R. 11(C)(2).

{¶ 8} Miller responds that the state failed to preserve the issue whether substantial compliance or strict compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) is required when determining whether defendants understand that they are waiving their constitutional trial rights by pleading guilty. He further asserts that the Eighth District correctly held that strict compliance is required, and he argues that even if a substantial-compliance standard applies, the trial court failed to satisfy that standard in this case.

A. The Issue in this Case Is Properly Before Us

{¶ 9} As an initial procedural matter, we conclude that the state's failure to argue below for a substantial-compliance standard does not constitute a basis for affirming the judgment of the court of appeals. The issue whether substantial compliance or strict compliance applies is not essential to this case. Rather, the critical issue is what Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) requires of the trial court and what showing a defendant must make to demonstrate that the plea is invalid. The state contends that the trial court's colloquy fully complied with the requirements of the rule by conveying the substance of Miller's constitutional rights to him in a reasonably intelligible manner. We agree.

{¶ 10} Moreover, in its opinion, the Eighth District acknowledged that its strict-compliance holding conflicted with the Tenth District's holding in State v. Ellis , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-912, 2015-Ohio-3438, 2015 WL 5011707, ¶ 10-12, that Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, allows substantial compliance with the portion of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) requiring the trial court to determine whether the defendant understands that by pleading guilty he or she is waiving his or her constitutional trial rights. 2018-Ohio-843 at ¶ 12-14. Both parties have had a full opportunity to brief the issue, and given the differing views of the Eighth and Tenth Districts on this issue, we determine that it would assist the lower courts if we address this issue now.

B. Legal Background

{¶ 11} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) is the basis for our analysis in this case. That rule provides:

In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest 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.

{¶ 12} Our most relevant precedent regarding the issue of which standard applies is Veney . Of particular relevance is the language of Veney 's syllabus:

A trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and orally advise a defendant before accepting a felony plea that the plea waives (1) the right to a jury trial, (2) the right to confront one's accusers, (3) the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, (4) the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and (5) the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. When a trial court fails to strictly comply with this duty, the defendant's plea is invalid. ( Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), applied.)

Veney , at syllabus.

{¶ 13} In addressing the question of which standard applied, the Veney court confronted the question whether the trial court's failure to advise a criminal defendant of one of his constitutional trial rights was subject to harmless-error review under Crim.R. 52. The court explained that " ‘for a guilty plea to be voluntarily and intelligently entered, the defendant must be informed that he is waiving’ " the constitutional rights listed in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Veney , 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, at ¶ 25-26, quoting State v. Ballard , 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 477-478, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). But the court held that only substantial compliance with the nonconstitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2), namely the requirements in subdivisions (a) and (b), is required and that a defendant's claim that his plea is invalid due to a failure to adhere to those provisions is subject to harmless-error review, which requires a showing of prejudice. Id. at ¶ 14-15. But a trial court's failure to notify a defendant of his constitutional rights listed in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) amounts to plain error. Id. at ¶ 24, citing Ballard at 476-477, 423 N.E.2d 115.

{¶ 14} Veney therefore held that "the trial court must orally inform the defendant of the rights set forth in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) during the plea colloquy for the plea to be valid." Id. at ¶ 29. The court explained that "[a]lthough the trial court may vary slightly from the literal wording of the rule in the colloquy, the court cannot simply rely on other sources to convey these rights to the defendant." Id. Because the record in that case showed that the trial court had "plainly failed to orally inform Veney of his constitutional right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," the plea was invalid. Id. at ¶ 30. Notably, the case at bar does not involve the...