[Cite as State v. Steele, 2026-Ohio-2162.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 26CA000001
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 25CR06-0098 PAUL A. STEELE Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: June 9, 2026
BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Craig R. Baldwin; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: Charles T. McConville, Nicole E. Derr, Knox County Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Todd W. Barstow, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Paul A. Steele appeals the January 22, 2026
Sentencing Entry entered by the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced
him on one count of domestic violence after the trial court found him guilty upon
acceptance of his guilty plea to the same. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm
the trial court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} On June 2, 2025, the Knox County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on one
count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
Appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on June 4, 2025, and entered a
plea of not guilty to the charge. Appellant was released on a personal recognizance bond,
subject to the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program.
{¶3} After Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the Pretrial Release
Program, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. Appellant was arrested on
September 7, 2025. The trial court re-established bond, which continued to be subject to
the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program. On December 16, 2025, Appellant was
once again arrested for failing to comply. The trial court again re-established bond,
subject to the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program. After a number of
continuances, the trial court scheduled the matter for trial on February 10, 2026.
{¶4} The trial court scheduled the matter for a change of plea hearing on January
21, 2026. On that day, Appellant appeared before the trial court, withdrew his former
plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to an amended count of domestic violence,
in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The parties waived a
presentence investigation. Following a Crim. R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted
Appellant's plea and found him guilty. The trial court immediately proceeded to
sentencing. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve 150 days in the Knox County Jail
with credit for 45 days served. The trial court memorialized Appellant’s sentence via
Sentencing Entry filed January 22, 2026.
{¶5} It is from this entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of
error: APPELLANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND
VOLUNTARILY ENTER HIS PLEAS OF GUILTY, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION. (R. ENTRY 1/22/26; T. 1/21/26).
I
{¶6} A criminal defendant's choice to enter a guilty plea is a serious decision.
State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25. Due process requires a defendant's plea be made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; otherwise, the defendant's plea is invalid. Id.
{¶7} “Crim.R. 11 sets forth the procedural requirements to which a trial court
must adhere in order for guilty pleas, and resulting waivers of constitutional rights, to be
valid.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Scott, 2025-Ohio-1244, ¶ 17
(4th Dist.). The rule “ensures an adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to
personally inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea and
determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.” State v. Stone, 43 Ohio
St.2d 163, 168 (1975).
{¶8} Appellant pled guilty to, and was convicted of, one count of domestic
violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. This
conviction was not only a misdemeanor, but also a petty offense. A “petty offense” is
defined as “any misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty pursuant to state law is
imprisonment for six months or less.” Crim.R. 2(D). “In accepting a plea to a
misdemeanor involving a petty offense, a trial court is required to inform the defendant only of the effect of the specific plea being entered.” State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093,
paragraph one of syllabus, construing Crim.R. 11(E).
{¶9} This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a plea in
compliance with Crim.R. 11. State v. Willard, 2021-Ohio-2552, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.). In
reviewing a plea colloquy, the focus is not “on whether the trial judge has ‘[incanted] the
precise verbiage’ of the rule, State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 92 (1977), but on whether
the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant
understood the consequences of his plea.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 12. For
this reason, a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction on appeal unless “an error
occurred in the trial-court proceedings and . . . [the defendant] was prejudiced by that
error.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶10} Appellant contends “the trial court failed to discuss with Appellant that the
effect of his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt” and “failed to discuss with him
that it could proceed immediately to sentencing upon the acceptance of his plea.” Brief
of Appellant at p. 2.
{¶11} A guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt. Crim.R. 11(B)(1).
“Advisement of this consequence is nonconstitutional and reviewed under a substantial-
compliance standard.” State v. Carder, 2026-Ohio-1061, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.), citing State v.
Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶¶ 11-12. When substantial compliance applies, the defendant
must demonstrate prejudice— but for the alleged error, the plea would not have been
entered. Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15; State v. Nero, 56 Ohio
St.3d 106, 108 (1990). {¶12} “Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances
the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is
waiving.” State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 at ¶ 15.
{¶13} A review of the transcript of the change of plea hearing reveals the trial court
strictly complied with each constitutional notification requirement and substantially
complied with each non-constitutional notification requirement. Specifically, the record
reflects the trial court advised Appellant a guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt.
{¶14} Prior to the State providing a statement of the facts giving rise to the
Indictment, the trial court addressed Appellant, as follows:
I’m going to ask the State to put on a brief statement of the facts, and
then, Mr. Steele, I’ll ask you if you admit to the facts, and by doing so, if you
admit to your guilt to the charge.
Transcript of January 21, 2026 Change of Plea Hearing at p. 10.
{¶15} Upon conclusion of the State’s recitation of the facts, the trial court
continued:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Steele, did you hear the facts stated by
[the Prosecutor]?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you admit to those facts?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
[Cite as State v. Steele, 2026-Ohio-2162.]
IN THE OHIO COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT KNOX COUNTY, OHIO
STATE OF OHIO Case No. 26CA000001
Plaintiff - Appellee Opinion and Judgment Entry
-vs- Appeal from the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 25CR06-0098 PAUL A. STEELE Judgment: Affirmed Defendant - Appellant Date of Judgment Entry: June 9, 2026
BEFORE: William B. Hoffman; Craig R. Baldwin; Kevin W. Popham, Judges
APPEARANCES: Charles T. McConville, Nicole E. Derr, Knox County Prosecutor, for Plaintiff-Appellee; Todd W. Barstow, for Defendant-Appellant.
Hoffman, P.J.
{¶1} Defendant-appellant Paul A. Steele appeals the January 22, 2026
Sentencing Entry entered by the Knox County Court of Common Pleas, which sentenced
him on one count of domestic violence after the trial court found him guilty upon
acceptance of his guilty plea to the same. Plaintiff-appellee is the State of Ohio. We affirm
the trial court. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
{¶2} On June 2, 2025, the Knox County Grand Jury indicted Appellant on one
count of domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a felony of the fourth degree.
Appellant appeared before the trial court for arraignment on June 4, 2025, and entered a
plea of not guilty to the charge. Appellant was released on a personal recognizance bond,
subject to the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program.
{¶3} After Appellant failed to comply with the conditions of the Pretrial Release
Program, the trial court issued a warrant for his arrest. Appellant was arrested on
September 7, 2025. The trial court re-established bond, which continued to be subject to
the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program. On December 16, 2025, Appellant was
once again arrested for failing to comply. The trial court again re-established bond,
subject to the conditions of the Pretrial Release Program. After a number of
continuances, the trial court scheduled the matter for trial on February 10, 2026.
{¶4} The trial court scheduled the matter for a change of plea hearing on January
21, 2026. On that day, Appellant appeared before the trial court, withdrew his former
plea of not guilty, and entered a plea of guilty to an amended count of domestic violence,
in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. The parties waived a
presentence investigation. Following a Crim. R. 11 colloquy, the trial court accepted
Appellant's plea and found him guilty. The trial court immediately proceeded to
sentencing. The trial court ordered Appellant to serve 150 days in the Knox County Jail
with credit for 45 days served. The trial court memorialized Appellant’s sentence via
Sentencing Entry filed January 22, 2026.
{¶5} It is from this entry Appellant appeals, raising as his sole assignment of
error: APPELLANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY AND
VOLUNTARILY ENTER HIS PLEAS OF GUILTY, IN VIOLATION OF HIS
RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW UNDER THE FIFTH AND
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE SECTION SIXTEEN OF THE OHIO
CONSTITUTION. (R. ENTRY 1/22/26; T. 1/21/26).
I
{¶6} A criminal defendant's choice to enter a guilty plea is a serious decision.
State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25. Due process requires a defendant's plea be made
knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; otherwise, the defendant's plea is invalid. Id.
{¶7} “Crim.R. 11 sets forth the procedural requirements to which a trial court
must adhere in order for guilty pleas, and resulting waivers of constitutional rights, to be
valid.” (Internal quotations and citations omitted.) State v. Scott, 2025-Ohio-1244, ¶ 17
(4th Dist.). The rule “ensures an adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to
personally inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea and
determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.” State v. Stone, 43 Ohio
St.2d 163, 168 (1975).
{¶8} Appellant pled guilty to, and was convicted of, one count of domestic
violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), a misdemeanor of the first degree. This
conviction was not only a misdemeanor, but also a petty offense. A “petty offense” is
defined as “any misdemeanor for which the maximum penalty pursuant to state law is
imprisonment for six months or less.” Crim.R. 2(D). “In accepting a plea to a
misdemeanor involving a petty offense, a trial court is required to inform the defendant only of the effect of the specific plea being entered.” State v. Jones, 2007-Ohio-6093,
paragraph one of syllabus, construing Crim.R. 11(E).
{¶9} This Court reviews de novo whether the trial court accepted a plea in
compliance with Crim.R. 11. State v. Willard, 2021-Ohio-2552, ¶ 51 (11th Dist.). In
reviewing a plea colloquy, the focus is not “on whether the trial judge has ‘[incanted] the
precise verbiage’ of the rule, State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 92 (1977), but on whether
the dialogue between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant
understood the consequences of his plea.” State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 12. For
this reason, a reviewing court will not reverse a conviction on appeal unless “an error
occurred in the trial-court proceedings and . . . [the defendant] was prejudiced by that
error.” Id. at ¶ 13.
{¶10} Appellant contends “the trial court failed to discuss with Appellant that the
effect of his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt” and “failed to discuss with him
that it could proceed immediately to sentencing upon the acceptance of his plea.” Brief
of Appellant at p. 2.
{¶11} A guilty plea constitutes a complete admission of guilt. Crim.R. 11(B)(1).
“Advisement of this consequence is nonconstitutional and reviewed under a substantial-
compliance standard.” State v. Carder, 2026-Ohio-1061, ¶ 9 (5th Dist.), citing State v.
Griggs, 2004-Ohio-4415, ¶¶ 11-12. When substantial compliance applies, the defendant
must demonstrate prejudice— but for the alleged error, the plea would not have been
entered. Id. at ¶ 10, citing State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15; State v. Nero, 56 Ohio
St.3d 106, 108 (1990). {¶12} “Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances
the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is
waiving.” State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 at ¶ 15.
{¶13} A review of the transcript of the change of plea hearing reveals the trial court
strictly complied with each constitutional notification requirement and substantially
complied with each non-constitutional notification requirement. Specifically, the record
reflects the trial court advised Appellant a guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt.
{¶14} Prior to the State providing a statement of the facts giving rise to the
Indictment, the trial court addressed Appellant, as follows:
I’m going to ask the State to put on a brief statement of the facts, and
then, Mr. Steele, I’ll ask you if you admit to the facts, and by doing so, if you
admit to your guilt to the charge.
Transcript of January 21, 2026 Change of Plea Hearing at p. 10.
{¶15} Upon conclusion of the State’s recitation of the facts, the trial court
continued:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Steele, did you hear the facts stated by
[the Prosecutor]?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: And do you admit to those facts?
[APPELLANT]: Yes, sir. THE COURT: And by admitting to the facts, do you admit to your
guilt to the charge of domestic violence, a Misdemeanor of the First Degree?
Id. at pp. 10-11.
{¶16} The trial court reviewed the written plea agreement with Appellant after the
constitutional rights advisements, and Appellant confirmed he had reviewed it with
counsel, read and understood it, and signed it voluntarily. “The use of a written plea form
does not substitute for the oral colloquy required by Crim.R. 11, but it may reinforce that
the plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when considered together with the oral
colloquy.” State v. Kirvin, 2026-Ohio-1527, ¶ 34 (5th Dist.) “Ohio appellate courts,
including the Fifth District, routinely consider the written plea form as part of the totality
of the circumstances.” Id.
{¶17} We further find the record belies Appellant’s assertion the trial court failed
to advise him it could proceed immediately to sentencing upon the acceptance of his plea.
After finding Appellant guilty, the trial court asked Attorney Erica Young, counsel for
Appellant, if Appellant was prepared to proceed with sentencing. Attorney Young
answered in the affirmative. The trial court addressed Appellant:
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Steele, you have the right to have a
Presentence Investigation prepared in your case, it requires a background
investigation interview, I would set sentencing for a date in the future or you
can proceed to sentencing today, if you waive your right to a Presentence
Investigation, is that what you would like to do? [APPELLANT}: Yes, sir.
Tr. at p. 12.
{¶18} The trial court immediately announced Appellant’s sentence. Appellant
waived his right to the presentence investigation and report. It is well established, in a
misdemeanor case, a presentence investigation report is not mandatory. (Internal
quotations and citation omitted.) State v. Doty, 2019-Ohio-917, ¶ 14 (12th Dist.). A
defendant is not entitled to have his plea vacated unless he demonstrates he was
prejudiced by a failure of the trial court to comply with the provisions of Crim.R. 11. Nero,
56 Ohio St.3d at 108. The test for prejudice is “whether the plea would have otherwise
been made.” Id. Appellant has failed to provide any argument to establish he was
prejudiced by the trial court’s failure to order a presentence investigation. A blanket claim
of prejudice is not sufficient. {¶19} Based upon the foregoing, Appellant’s sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶20} The judgment of the Knox County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
{¶21} Costs to Appellant.
By: Hoffman, P.J.
Baldwin, J. and
Popham, J. concur.