[Cite as State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-1864.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

KNOX COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsLEO L. JONES 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

: Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. 

: Hon. John W. Wise, J. 

: Hon. Earle E. Wise, J. 

: 

: 

: Case No. 20CA000020 

: 

: 

: OPINION 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Criminal appeal from the Knox County 

Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 

20CR09-0223 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: June 1, 2021 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

CHARLES T. MCCONVILLE TODD W. BARSTOW 

Knox County Prosecutor 261 W. Johnstown Rd., Ste. 204 

117 E. High Street, Ste 234 Columbus, OH 43230 

Mount Vernon, OH 43050 
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-1864.]

Gwin, P.J. 

{¶1} Appellant Leo L. Jones appeals the November 13, 2020 judgment entry of 

the Knox County Court of Common Pleas. Appellee is the State of Ohio. 

Facts & Procedural History 

{¶2} On September 9, 2020, the Knox County Grand Jury returned an indictment 

charging appellant with failure to provide change of address, in violation of R.C. 

2950.05(F)(1), a felony of the third degree. Appellant is required to register as a Tier III 

sex offender based upon previous sex offense convictions. Appellant registered an 

address with the Knox County Sheriff on June 12, 2020, but appellant was not present 

and living at that address from August 19, 2020 through September 3, 2020. 

{¶3} On October 15, 2020, appellant appeared with counsel and entered a guilty 

plea to the charge. 

{¶4} Appellant signed a “plea of guilty” form. He stated his plea of guilty was 

freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. Appellant also acknowledged that 

he was fully informed by his attorney and the court of all the constitutional rights he was 

waiving, “including my right to a jury trial * * *, my right to confront witnesses against me, 

my right to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in my favor, and my right to 

require the State of Ohio to prove my guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which 

I cannot be compelled to testify against myself.” 

{¶5} Appellant also signed a “Plea Agreement Disclosure and Acknowledgment.” 

He stated he understood that his “attorney could have obtained witnesses by subpoena 

to testify in [his] defense at trial.” 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 3 

{¶6} At the plea hearing, appellant confirmed he was satisfied with his attorney, 

and confirmed his attorney reviewed the written plea agreement with him. The trial court 

went through the maximum penalty appellant faced, and appellant stated he understood. 

Appellant also stated he recalled signing the plea form. 

{¶7} The trial court continued, “your plea cannot be accepted unless you 

understand the constitutional rights that you’re giving up.” Appellant responded “yes,” he 

understood that: he has the right to a jury or the right to have the judge hear his case; he 

understood the prosecutor had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of every 

element of the crime he was charged with; he understood his attorney could have crossexamined anyone who testified against him; and he understood he would not have to 

testify. The trial court stated, “And you understand that at the trial your attorney could 

have obtained witnesses by subpoena to testify in your defense?” Appellant responded, 

“yes.” 

{¶8} The trial court asked appellant if he had any questions, and appellant stated, 

“No.” Appellant confirmed he voluntarily waived and gave up all of the constitutional rights 

discussed. Based upon appellant’s representations, the trial court found appellant had 

“been informed of his constitutional rights, [and] ha[d] made a knowing, intelligent, and 

voluntary wavier of those rights.” The trial court accepted appellant’s guilty plea and found 

him guilty of the charge. 

{¶9} The trial court issued a journal entry on October 16, 2020, stating it 

personally addressed appellant as to the matters contained in Criminal Rule 11(C)(2), 

and finding appellant’s plea was freely, voluntarily, and intelligently made. The trial court 

referred the matter for a presentence investigation, and set a sentencing date. 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 4 

{¶10} The trial court sentenced appellant to twenty-four (24) months in jail. The 

trial court issued a sentencing entry on November 13, 2020. 

{¶11} Appellant appeals the November 13, 2020 judgment entry of the Knox 

County Court of Common Pleas and assigns the following as error: 

{¶12} “I. APPELLANT DID NOT KNOWINGLY, INTELLIGENTLY, AND 

VOLUNTARILY ENTER HIS PLEA OF GUILTY, IN VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO DUE 

PROCESS UNDER THE FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE UNITED

STATES CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE ONE, SECTION SIXTEEN, OF THE OHIO 

CONSTITUTION.” 

I. 

{¶13} In his assignment of error, appellant contends his plea was not knowingly, 

intelligently, and voluntarily made. Specifically, appellant argues the trial court failed to 

adequately advise him that he was “waiving the right to have compulsory process for 

obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor,” when the trial court stated, “you understand 

that at the trial your attorney could have obtained witnesses by subpoena to testify in your 

defense?” 

{¶14} “When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Failure on any of those points renders 

enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and 

the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). “An 

appellate court determining whether a guilty plea was entered knowingly, intelligently, and 

voluntarily, conducts a de novo review of the record to ensure that the trial court complied 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 5 

with the constitutional and procedural safeguards.” State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 

423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). 

{¶15} Criminal Rule 11(C) requires a trial judge to determine whether a criminal 

defendant is fully informed of his or her rights and understands the consequences of his 

or her guilty plea. State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826. 

Of particular relevance to this case is Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(c), which provides, “[i]n 

felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first 

addressing the defendant personally and * * * informing the defendant and determining 

that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights * * * 

to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor * * *.” The 

underlying purpose of Rule 11(C) is to convey to the defendant certain information so that 

he or she can make a voluntary and intelligent decision as to whether to plead guilty. 

State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). 

{¶16} The Ohio Supreme Court has held that strict compliance with Rule 

11(C)(2)(c) is required when advising a defendant of the constitutional rights he or she is 

waiving by pleading guilty or no contest. State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio5200, 897 N.E.2d 621; State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 

826. The Supreme Court recently addressed this issue in State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 

447, 2020-Ohio-1420, 151 N.E.3d 617, and held, “trial courts must strictly comply with 

11(C)(2)(c) and failure to do so cannot be deemed harmless.” Included in the list of 

constitutional rights is “the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses.” Id. 

{¶17} The Supreme Court of Ohio has repeatedly held that while the preferred 

method of informing a criminal defendant of his or her constitutional rights during the plea 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 6 

colloquy is to use the language contained in Criminal Rule 11(C), a trial judge is not 

required to recite the provision of 11(C)(2)(c) verbatim. State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 

447, 2020-Ohio-1420, 151 N.E.3d 617; State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio5200, 897 N.E.2d 621; State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 

826. To “strictly comply with the rule, the trial court must orally advise the defendant, in 

a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant, that the plea waives the rights 

enumerated in the rule.” Id. 

{¶18} Appellant argues the trial court did not strictly comply with Rule 11(C)(2)(c) 

because the trial court did not tell him he was waiving the right to have the court compel 

enforcement of a subpoena. We disagree. The language used by the trial court in this 

case mirrors language that has been found to strictly comply with Rule 11(C)(2)(c). 

{¶19} The Supreme Court has held that a trial court complies with Criminal Rule 

11(C) and it is a reasonably intelligible explanation to the defendant of his right to 

compulsory process when the right is described as the “right to call witnesses to speak 

on your behalf.” State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826. 

The terms “subpoena” or “compel” were not required. Id. The Ohio Supreme Court also 

recently held that the statement, “your lawyer can issue subpoenas to help you get them 

[witnesses] here to testify for you,” strictly complied with Rule 11(C)(2)(c). State v. Miller,

159 Ohio St.3d 447, 2020-Ohio-1420, 151 N.E.3d 617. 

{¶20} Other courts have similarly held that language stating counsel may 

subpoena witnesses for the defendant was sufficient for strict compliance with Rule 

11(C)(2)(c)’s compulsory process requirement. State v. Coleman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 

26008, 2012-Ohio-1712 (statement that “by pleading guilty he was giving up the right to 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 7 

have his counsel subpoena and cross-examine witnesses” was sufficient); State v. Pigge, 

4th Dist. Ross No. 09CA3136, 2010-Ohio-6541 (statement that guilty plea waives the 

right to subpoena witnesses sufficiently advises a defendant in a reasonably intelligible 

manner of his compulsory process right); State v. Ward, 2nd Dist. Montgomery No. 

21044, 2006-Ohio-832 (statement that the defendant was “giving up his right to have his 

own witnesses come in here and testify for him” was sufficient for strict compliance); State 

v. Parks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86312, 2006-Ohio-1352 (use of word “subpoena” 

adequately informs defendant of his right to compulsory process). 

{¶21} In this case, we find the trial court strictly complied with the compulsory 

process portion of Rule 11(C)(2)(c) because the trial court used language understandable 

and reasonably intelligible to appellant, such that he could make a voluntary and 

intelligent decision whether to plead guilty knowing that the constitutional right to 

compulsory process would not be exercisable if he did plead guilty. 

{¶22} Further, the “plea of guilty” form and “plea disclosure” documents, both 

signed by appellant, address the issue of compulsory process, and are additional 

evidence that the trial court adequately advised appellant of his right to compulsory 

process. State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826 (when 

trial court addresses all the constitutional rights in an oral colloquy, a reviewing court 

should be permitted to consider additional record evidence such as a change of plea 

form); State v. Coleman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26008, 2012-Ohio-1712; State v. Pigge, 

4th Dist. Ross No. 09CA3136, 2010-Ohio-6541. The “plea disclosure form” states 

appellant understood his “attorney could have obtained witnesses by subpoena to testify 

in [his] defense at trial.” The plea of guilty form states appellant was fully informed by his 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 8 

attorney and the court of the constitutional rights he was waiving, including his “right to 

have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in [his] favor.” 

{¶23} Defendant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and, at 

the change of plea hearing, he affirmatively responded when the trial court asked if his 

counsel had gone over the plea agreement to his satisfaction and if he understood the 

rights he was waiving. Nothing in the record suggests that appellant did not understand. 

At no point during the plea hearing did he indicate any sort of confusion over the meaning 

of any of the court’s statements or the rights he was waiving by pleading guilty. Rather, 

every time the court asked him if he understood, appellant indicated he did. At the 

conclusion of the plea hearing, the trial court asked appellant if he had any questions. 

Appellant responded, “no.” 

{¶24} We find the trial court used easily understood words conveying to appellant 

that he would be waiving certain constitutional rights if he pled guilty and that exchange 

resulted in appellant’s plea being voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently made. The trial 

court strictly complied with Criminal Rule 11(C)(2)(c). Appellant’s assignment of error is 

overruled. 
«County» County, Case No. «CASE_NO»0 9 

{¶25} The November 13, 2020 judgment entry of the Knox County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By Gwin, P.J., 

Wise, John, J., and 

Wise, Earle, J., concur 

 

 
[Cite as State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-1864.]