[Cite as State v. Moore, 2019-Ohio-3657.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, : 

 Plaintiff-Appellee, : 

 Nos. 107702, 108596, 

 v. : 108597, 108598, and 

 108599 

BENJAMIN MOORE, : 

 

 Defendant-Appellant. : 

 

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

 JUDGMENT: VACATED AND REMANDED 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: September 12, 2019 

 

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case Nos. CR-18-627150-A, CR-17-617114-A, CR-17-615966-D, 

CR-17-615208-A, and CR-18-626968-A 

 

Appearances: 

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting 

Attorney, and Kelly N. Mason, Assistant Prosecuting 

Attorney, for appellee. 

Robert A. Dixon, for appellant. 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., J.: 

Defendant-appellant, Benjamin Moore (“appellant”), brings this appeal 

challenging his convictions and sentences in five criminal cases. Specifically, 

appellant argues that his guilty pleas were not knowingly and intelligently entered 
because the trial court failed to advise him of his rights pursuant to Crim.R. 11. 

Pursuant to Loc.App.R. 16(B), the state concedes this error. After a thorough review 

of the record and law, this court vacates appellant’s convictions and remands for 

further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

I. Factual and Procedural History 

Appellant brings the instant appeal from his convictions in five criminal 

cases: Cuyahoga C.P. Nos. CR-18-627150-A, CR-18-626968-A, CR-17-615208-A, 

CR-17-615966-D, and CR-17-617114-A. Appellant and the state reach a plea 

agreement. The state agreed to amend the indictments in exchange for appellant’s 

guilty pleas in all five cases. On June 25, 2018, appellant pled guilty to the amended 

indictments in the five cases. The five cases consisted of various offenses for 

weapons charges, and trafficking and possession of drug charges. On August 21, 

2018, appellant was sentenced to an aggregate prison term of three years. 

On September 19, 2018, appellant filed the instant appeal challenging 

his convictions in all five criminal cases.1 He assigns one error for our review: 

I. The judgment(s) below must be vacated as the court failed to 

comply with Ohio Crim.R. 11 in violation of the appellant’s right 

to due process of law. 

 1 Appellant filed his notice of appeal on September 19, 2018, from CR-18-627150 

only. This court granted appellant’s motion for a delayed appeal in the remaining four 

cases on May 22, 2019. See motion No. 528905. Accordingly, all five cases are currently 

before this court in the instant appeal. 
In his sole assignment of error, appellant argues that his guilty pleas 

were not knowingly and intelligently entered because the trial court failed to advise 

him of his constitutional rights in violation of Crim.R. 11. 

When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be 

knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. Prior to accepting a defendant’s 

guilty plea, a trial court is bound by the requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2). State v. 

Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 27. 

Crim.R. 11(C)(2), governing pleas in felony cases, 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: 

(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with 

understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum 

penalty involved, and, if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible 

for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions 

at the sentencing hearing. 

(b)Informing the defendant of and determining that the defendant 

understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, and that 

the court, upon acceptance of the plea, may proceed with judgment 

and sentence. 

(c) 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. 

Moreover, “[t]he underlying purpose of Crim.R. 11(C) is to convey 

information to the defendant so that he or she can make a voluntary and intelligent 
decision regarding whether to plead.” State v. Carty, 2018-Ohio-2739, 116 N.E.3d 

862, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), citing State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 

115 (1981). ‘“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea 

unconstitutional under both the United States Constitution and the Ohio 

Constitution.”’ State v. Albright, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 107632, 2019-Ohio-1998, 

¶ 14, quoting State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527, 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). 

This court applies a de novo review of the record to determine whether 

the trial court complied with the requirements set forth in Crim.R. 11(C). State v. 

Gatson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 94668, 2011-Ohio-460, ¶ 4. 

In the instant matter, in the notice of conceded error, the state 

acknowledged that during the June 25, 2018 change-of-plea hearing, the trial court 

failed to advise appellant of any of the Crim.R. 11(C)(2) constitutional rights. 

In our review of the change of plea hearing transcript, we note that the 

trial court thoroughly reviewed the terms of the plea agreement. The trial court also 

discussed the issue of appellant’s jail-time credit, and calculated the number of days 

of jail-time credit appellant was entitled to receive. Further, the trial court discussed 

with appellant the terms of postrelease control, fines, and court costs. However, the 

trial court simply failed to advise appellant of any of the Crim.R. 11(C)(2) 

constitutional rights. 

Appellant’s sole assignment of error is sustained. 
Appellant’s convictions in CR-18-627150-A, CR-18-626968-A, CR-17-

615208-A, CR-17-615966-D, and CR-17-617114-A are vacated, and the matter is 

remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is ordered that appellant recover of said 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. 

 

FRANK D. CELEBREZZE, JR., JUDGE 

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and 

RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J., CONCUR