[Cite as State v. Venes, 2012-Ohio-81.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 96780 

 STATE OF OHIO

PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE 

vs.

WILLIAM VENES

DEFENDANT-APPELLANT 

JUDGMENT: 

REVERSED AND REMANDED

Criminal Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CR-546427 

BEFORE: Rocco, J., Jones, P.J., and E. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: January 12, 2012 

 -i- 
2

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

R. Brian Moriarty 

R. Brian Moriarty, L.L.C. 

2000 Standard Building 

1370 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

William D. Mason 

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor 

BY: Jesse W. Canonico 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney 

The Justice Center 

1200 Ontario Street 

Cleveland, Ohio 44113 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, J.: 

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant William Venes appeals from his convictions after he 

entered guilty pleas to 111 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a 

minor and one count of possession of criminal tools. 

{¶ 2} Venes presents one assignment of error. He asserts his pleas were invalid 

because the trial court failed to inform him of one of the constitutional rights he was 

waiving in entering his pleas. 
3

{¶ 3} Since the state concedes Venes’s assertion, and since the record reflects it is 

accurate, Venes’s assignment of error is sustained. His convictions are reversed, and this 

case is remanded for further proceedings. 

{¶ 4} Venes was indicted in this case on January 24, 2011. The indictment 

charged him with 111 counts of pandering sexually-oriented matter involving a minor, 

and one count of possession of criminal tools, to wit: a computer. He pleaded not guilty 

to the charges at his arraignment. 

{¶ 5} Two months later, on March 24, 2011, Venes agreed to change his pleas 

and enter a guilty plea to all the charges. During the colloquy, the trial court did not 

mention Venes had a constitutional right to compulsory process. 

{¶ 6} After Venes entered his guilty pleas, the trial court accepted them and 

referred him for a presentence investigation and report. The trial court subsequently 

sentenced Venes to a prison term that totaled 24 years. 

{¶ 7} In this appeal from his convictions, Venes presents the following 

assignment of error. 

{¶ 8} “I. The trial court did not comply with Crim.R. 11 and defendant’s plea 

was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.” 

{¶ 9} Venes argues the trial court’s failure to inform him during the Crim.R. 

11(C) colloquy of his right to compulsory process renders his plea invalid. The state 

concedes Venes’s argument. Since the record reflects the trial court did not ensure 
4

Venes understood all of the constitutional rights he was waiving in entering his pleas, his 

convictions must be reversed. 

{¶ 10} In State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472, 2011-Ohio-4130, 953 N.E.2d 826, ¶ 

9-14, the Ohio Supreme Court recently stated: 

“‘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 

(1996), 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450. Crim.R. 11 was adopted 

in 1973 to give detailed instructions to trial courts on the procedures to 

follow before accepting pleas of guilty or no contest. State v. Veney, 120 

Ohio St.3d 176, 2008-Ohio-5200, 897 N.E.2d 621, ¶7. 

“Crim.R. 11(C) requires a trial judge to determine whether that 

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

consequences of his or her guilty plea. Of particular relevance to the case 

at bar is Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c), which provides: 

“‘In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a 

plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without 

first addressing the defendant personally and doing all of the following: 

“‘ * * * 
5

“‘Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant 

understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, 

to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for 

obtaining witnesses in the defendant’s favor, and to require the state to 

prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the 

defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself.’ 

(Emphasis added.) 

“This court has held that the preferred method of informing a 

criminal defendant of his or her constitutional rights during the plea 

colloquy is to use the language contained in Crim.R. 11(C). [Citations 

omitted.] * * * . 

“In Veney, we reaffirmed that strict, or literal, compliance with 

Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) is required when advising the defendant of the 

constitutional rights he is waiving by pleading guilty or no contest. Id. at 

¶18. Included in the list of constitutional rights is ‘the right to compulsory 

process to obtain witnesses.’ Id. at ¶19, citing Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 

395 U.S. 238, 243, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 * * * . The right to 

compulsory process of witnesses is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to 

the United States Constitution and Section 10, Article I, Ohio Constitution. 

* * * ” 
6

{¶ 11} The supreme court went on to comment in Barker that the “underlying 

purpose, from the defendant’s perspective, of Crim.R. 11(C) is to convey to the defendant 

certain information so that he can make a voluntary and intelligent decision whether to 

plead guilty.” Id. ¶ 15. Thus, the trial court must “actually explain[ ] the rights to the 

defendant.” Id., citing Veney at ¶ 27. 

{¶ 12} It follows that when the trial court does not mention, as in this case, that by 

entering his guilty pleas Venes was waiving his constitutional right to compulsory 

process, the pleas are rendered invalid. State v. Woods, 192 Ohio App.3d 494, 

2011-Ohio-727, 949 N.E.2d 574. 

{¶ 13} Consequently, Venes’s assignment of error is sustained. 

{¶ 14} Venes’s convictions are reversed, and this case is remanded for further 

proceedings. 

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. 

______________________________ 

KENNETH A. ROCCO, JUDGE 
7

LARRY A. JONES, P.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR