FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF
WAYNE, OHIO CASE No. 2016 CRC-1 000002
V. GEDROCK, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
R. LUTZ, Prosecuting Attorney, and NATHAN R. SHAKER,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
J. CARR JUDGE
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.
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
McKinney filed a motion for a delayed appeal, which this
Court granted.McKinney now raises a single assignment of
error for our review.
THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR[ W]HEN IN TAKING
MCKINNEY'S NO CONTEST PLEA IT FAILED TO COMPLY WITH
CRIMINAL RULE 11.
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
"'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.
"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 ¶ 31.
"'Because Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) deals with the waiver
of constitutional rights, strict ...