State v. Walker
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as State v. Walker, 2008-Ohio-5629.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. ALLEN WALKER, Defendant-Appellant. : : : : : : APPEAL NOS. C-070345 C-070346 C-070347 C-070348 C-070349 TRIAL NOS. B-0606987 B-0606071 B-0608335 B-0602311 B-0702815 D E C I S I O N. : Criminal Appeals From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas Judgments Appealed From Are: Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Cause Remanded Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: October 31, 2008 Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and James Michael Keeling, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee, Christine Y. Jones, for Defendant-Appellant. Please note: This case has been removed from the accelerated calendar. OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS S YLVIA S IEVE H ENDON , Judge. {¶1} Following his guilty pleas, defendant-appellant Allen Walker was convicted of three counts of harassment by an inmate,1 three counts of assault,2 felonious assault,3 aggravated robbery,4 and robbery.5 Walker now appeals. {¶2} In a single assignment of error, Walker argues that his guilty pleas were invalid because the trial court had failed to inform him that the state would have been required to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a trial. {¶3} In accepting a guilty plea, a trial court is required under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) to orally advise the defendant that, by entering the plea, the defendant waives the right to a jury trial, the right to confront one s accusers, the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, the right to require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the privilege against compulsory self-incrimination.6 When a trial court fails to strictly comply with this duty, the defendant s plea is invalid.7 {¶4} In this case, in accepting pleas to eight of the nine charges, the trial court failed to inform Walker under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) that, by entering a guilty plea, he was waiving his right to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. As a result of the court s failure to strictly comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(c), Walker s pleas to those eight charges were constitutionally invalid. Accordingly, we sustain in part the assignment of error, and we vacate the guilty pleas entered in the cases numbered B0606987, B-0606071, B-0608335, and B-0602311. Therefore, in the appeals numbered R.C. 2921.38(A). R.C. 2903.13(A). 3 R.C. 2903.11(A)(2). 4 R.C. 2911.01(A)(1). 5 R.C. 2911.02(A)(2). 6 State v. Veney, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2008-Ohio-5200, ___ N.E.2d ___, syllabus. 7 Id. 1 2 2 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS C-070345, C-070346, C-070347, and C-070348, we reverse the trial court s judgment and remand this cause for further proceedings in accordance with law and this decision. {¶5} Because the trial court strictly complied with its duty under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it accepted Walker s guilty plea to an assault charge in the case numbered B-0702815, his plea in that case was valid. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court s judgment in the appeal numbered C-070349. Judgments affirmed in part and reversed in part, and cause remanded. H ILDEBRANDT , P.J., P AINTER and H ENDON , JJ. Please Note: The court has recorded its own entry this date. 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
