State v. Shannon

2023 Ohio 3483

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: September 28, 2023
• Docket: 112743
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Shannon, 2023-Ohio-3483.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 112743 v. :

DEVIN SHANNON, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 28, 2023

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-22-672065-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James S. Gallagher, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Mary Catherine Corrigan, for appellant.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

Devin Shannon appeals his conviction contending that his guilty plea

is invalid and that his sentence is contrary to law. Under Loc.App.R. 16(B), the state

concedes that the trial court erred by failing to comply with Crim.R. 11 when

accepting Shannon’s guilty plea. After a thorough independent review of the record and applicable law, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

In October 2022, Shannon was named in a single-count indictment

charging him with theft, a fourth-degree felony violation of R.C. 2913.02(A)(1). In

March 2023, Shannon entered into a plea agreement with the state whereby he

agreed to plead guilty to an amended count of attempted theft, a fifth-degree felony.

During the plea colloquy, the trial court never advised Shannon of the constitutional

rights that he would be waiving, as required under Crim.R. 11(C), before accepting

his guilty plea. The court subsequently sentenced him to eleven months of

incarceration. This appeal follows.

In his second assignment of error, Shannon contends that he did not

enter a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea because the trial court failed to

strictly comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it failed to advise him of his

constitutional rights that he would be waiving by pleading guilty.

The underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11 is to convey certain information

to a defendant so that they can make a voluntary and intelligent decision regarding

whether to plead guilty. State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479-480, 423 N.E.2d

115 (1981). The Ohio Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that strict

compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) is required when informing a defendant of his

constitutional rights, and a trial court “shall not accept a plea of guilty” without first

informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver. State v. Brinkman,

165 Ohio St.3d 523, 2021-Ohio-2473, 180 N.E.3d 1074, ¶ 17-18.

In this case, the trial court never advised Shannon of any

constitutional rights and thus, completely failed to comply with the requirements of

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). Accordingly, and as conceded by the state, the plea is invalid.

See State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶ 1. The

assignment of error is therefore sustained. We vacate Shannon’s plea, reverse his

conviction, and remand the matter to the trial court.1

Judgment reversed and case remanded.

It is ordered that appellant recover from appellee costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. Case remanded to the

trial court for further proceedings.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

FRANK DANIEL CELEBREZZE, III, P.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR

1 Having sustained Shannon’s second assignment of error, his first assignment of

error challenging his sentence is rendered moot. See App.R. 12(A)(1)(c).