Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. McKinney

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Wayne

June 19, 2017

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
JOSEPH MCKINNEY Appellant

         APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2016 CRC-1 000002

          DAVID V. GEDROCK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          DANIEL R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

          DONNA J. CARR JUDGE

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant Joseph McKinney appeals from the judgment of the Wayne County Court of Common Pleas. This Court reverses and remands the matter for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

         I.

         {¶2} In January 2016, McKinney was indicted on one count of illegal assembly or possession of chemicals for the manufacture of drugs in violation of R.C. 2925.041(A), a felony of the third degree. McKinney pleaded guilty to the charge and the trial court sentenced McKinney to 18 months in prison.

         {¶3} McKinney filed a motion for a delayed appeal, which this Court granted.[1]McKinney now raises a single assignment of error for our review.

          II.

         ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR[ W]HEN IN TAKING MCKINNEY'S NO CONTEST PLEA IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH CRIMINAL RULE 11.

         {¶4} McKinney argues in his assignment of error that the trial court failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 in taking his plea. The State has conceded that the trial court failed to inform McKinney of his right to confrontation, thereby rendering his plea invalid.

         {¶5} "'A plea is invalid where it has not been entered in a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary manner.'" State v. Farnsworth, 9th Dist. Medina No. 15CA0038-M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 4, quoting State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25, citing State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 (1996). "Crim.R. 11(C) prohibits a trial judge from accepting a guilty plea without first ensuring that the defendant is fully informed regarding his rights and that he understands the consequences of his plea." Farnsworth at ¶ 4.

         {¶6} "The Ohio Supreme Court has urged literal compliance with the mandates of Crim.R. 11." Id. at ¶ 6, citing Clark at ¶ 29. "However, in the absence of literal compliance, 'reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or non constitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy.'" Farnsworth at ¶ 6, quoting Clark at ¶ 30. "When a trial judge fails to explain the constitutional rights set forth in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), the guilty or no-contest plea is invalid under a presumption that it was entered involuntarily and unknowingly." Farnsworth at ¶ 6, quoting Clark at ΒΆ 31. "'Because Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) deals with the waiver of constitutional rights, strict ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.