[Cite as State v. Cox, 2014-Ohio-388.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 99847

STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE

vs. 

RASHAWN COX

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-566788 

BEFORE: S. Gallagher, J., Jones, P.J., and Keough, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: February 6, 2014 
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT 

Rick L. Ferrara 

2077 East 4th Street 

Second Floor 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Timothy J. McGinty 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

By: Kristen L. Sobieski 

T. Allan Regas 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys 

Justice Center - 9th Floor 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: 

{¶1} Defendant Rashawn Cox appeals his conviction entered after a guilty plea. 

For the following reasons, we vacate Cox’s guilty plea, and reverse and remand for 

further proceedings. 

{¶2} Cox pleaded guilty to several drug trafficking and attendant charges. During 

the plea colloquy, the trial court inadvertently omitted the notification of Cox’s right to 

compel witnesses to testify at trial. The trial court informed Cox of his right to confront 

and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses to testify in his favor, but omitted any 

reference that could be taken to inform the defendant of his right to compel a witness’s 

attendance to testify. In his single assignment of error, Cox contends that his plea was 

not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered because the trial court failed to strictly 

comply with the constitutional requirement of informing him of his right to compel a 

witness to testify before accepting the guilty plea. The state concedes this error. 

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

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 

N.E.2d 450 (1996). The standard of review for determining whether a plea was 

knowing, intelligent, and voluntary within the meaning of Crim.R. 11 for constitutional 

issues is strict compliance. State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108, 564 N.E.2d 474

(1990), citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 92-93, 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977). 

Further, although a trial court need not specifically tell a defendant that he has the right to 

compulsory process, the court must otherwise notify the defendant that he has the power 
to force, compel, subpoena, or otherwise cause a witness to appear and testify. State v. 

Cummings, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 83759, 2004-Ohio-4470, ¶ 6, citing State v. Wilson, 

8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 82770, 2004-Ohio-499, ¶ 16. 

{¶4} Our review of the record confirms the trial court omitted the compulsory 

process notification from the change of plea colloquy. Because the trial court failed to 

strictly comply with this constitutional requirement, we must vacate Cox’s guilty plea and 

remand this case for further proceedings, even though the trial court otherwise explained 

the defendant’s right to have witnesses appear on his behalf. State v. Smith, 8th Dist. 

Cuyahoga No. 92320, 2009-Ohio-5692, ¶ 35 (a trial court’s notification of the 

defendant’s right to have witnesses testify on his behalf does not satisfy the compulsory 

process notification); compare State v. Parks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 86312, 

2006-Ohio-1352, ¶ 16-17 (the trial court’s notification of the defendant’s right to 

subpoena and call witnesses satisfied the requirement to notify the defendant of his right 

to compulsory process). Accordingly, we vacate Cox’s plea and remand the case for 

further proceedings. Cox’s sole assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶5} Reversed and remanded. 

This cause is reversed and remanded to the lower court for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

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. 

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

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE 

LARRY A. JONES, SR., P.J., and 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., CONCUR