Jump To

Top Caption Syllabus Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 20, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

State v. Hills

Ohio Court of Appeals

• Citations: 2026 Ohio 959
• Docket Number: L-25-00037

• Judges: Mayle

• Opinion

• Authorities (13)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (26.8K)

• PDF

Syllabus

Per Mayle, J., although Hills claims that his plea was not knowingly or intelligently made because the trial court failed to inform him of potential consequences, our review of the record establishes that the trial court complied with the constitutional and procedural safeguards set out in Crim.R. 11 to ensure that his plea was knowingly and intelligently entered. As such, we find Hills' assignment of error not well-taken and affirm the Judgement Entry of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.

Combined Opinion

[Cite as State v. Hills, 2026-Ohio-959.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
LUCAS COUNTY

State of Ohio Court of Appeals No. L-25-00037

Appellee Trial Court No. CR0202402329

v.

Emmanuel B. Hills DECISION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant Decided: March 20, 2026

---

Julia R. Bates, Lucas County Prosecuting Attorney, and
Evy M. Jarrett, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Patricia Horner, for appellant.

---

MAYLE, J.

{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Emmanuel Hills, appeals the February 11, 2025

judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas, sentencing him to an indefinite

term of four to six years in prison after he pled guilty to felonious assault in violation of

R.C. 2903.11(A)(1) and (D), a felony of the second degree; failure to stop after an

accident, in violation of R.C. 4549.02(A)(1), (A)(2), (B)(1) and (B)(2)(b), a felony of the

fourth degree; and domestic violence, in violation of R.C. 2919.25(A), (D)(1) and (D)(2),
a misdemeanor of the first degree. For the following reasons, we affirm the trial court

judgment.

I. Background

{¶ 2} According to the record, Hills was arrested after hitting his wife with his car

and leaving the scene of the accident. Following the arrest, on September 12, 2024, Hills

was indicted on two counts of felonious assault, two counts of failure to stop after an

accident, a count of domestic violence, and a count of vandalism. He was arraigned

shortly after and pled not guilty to all charges.

{¶ 3} On January 6, 2025, Hills pled guilty to one count of felonious assault, one

count of failure to stop after an accident, and one count of domestic violence. In

exchange, the three remaining counts were dismissed, and the prosecution recommended

a sentence cap of four years.

{¶ 4} A sentencing hearing was held on February 3, 2025. At that time, the trial

court imposed a sentence of four to six years in prison for the felonious assault, 18

months for the failure to stop after an accident, and 180 days for the domestic violence

conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently for a total indefinite

sentence of four-to-six-years.1

1
Hills also had a community control violation pending in Lucas County in CR 23-1282.
In that case, Hills pled to attempted having a weapon while under disability, a violation of
R.C. 2923.03 and 2923.13(A)(3) and (B), and a felony of the fourth degree. After his
plea and sentencing in this case, Hills’ community control was revoked in CR 23-1282,
and he was sentenced to 18 months prison time. The court ordered that the 18 months be
served concurrently with the sentence imposed in this case—the indefinite four to six
years. Hills did not appeal CR 23-1282.

2.
{¶ 5} Following his sentencing hearing, Hills appealed to this court. He presents

one assignment of error for our review:

DEFENDANT’S PLEA WAS NOT ENTERED INTO KNOWINGLY

II. Law and Analysis

{¶ 6} Hills argues that he was not fully informed of the “real and potential

consequences” of entering a plea, and as a result, he did not enter his plea knowingly or

intelligently.

A. Crim.R. 11 Standard and the Plea Process

{¶ 7} “When reviewing whether a plea was entered in compliance with Crim.R.

11(C), we apply a de novo standard of review.” State v. Acosta, 2023-Ohio-737, ¶ 18 (6th

Dist.), citing State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990).

{¶ 8} “Because a no-contest or guilty plea involves a waiver of constitutional

rights, a defendant’s decision to enter a plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.”

State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10, citing Parke v. Raley, 506 U.S. 20, 28-29,

(1992); State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, ¶ 25; and State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527

(1996). “If the plea was not made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily, enforcement

of that plea is unconstitutional.” Id., citing Engle at 527.

{¶ 9} Crim.R. 11 outlines the procedures that trial courts must follow when

accepting pleas to provide “‘an adequate record on review by requiring the trial court to

personally inform the defendant of his rights and the consequences of his plea and

determine if the plea is understandingly and voluntarily made.’” Id. at ¶ 11, quoting State

v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163, 168 (1975). Crim.R. 11(C)(2) requires that the sentencing

3.
judge must personally address the defendant at the plea hearing and inform the defendant

of all of the consequences of entering a plea. Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); State v. Montgomery,

2016–Ohio–5487, ¶ 41. Crim.R. 11(C)(2) states that:

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 either in-person or by remote
contemporaneous video in conformity with Crim.R. 43(A) 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.
{¶ 10} When reviewing compliance with Crim.R. 11, our focus is not on whether

the trial court recited the exact language of Crim.R. 11, but “on whether the dialogue

between the court and the defendant demonstrates that the defendant understood the

consequences” of the plea. Dangler at ¶ 12; State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200, ¶ 15-16.

{¶ 11} Generally, to show that a plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or

intelligently made, a criminal defendant must establish that an error occurred and that it

was prejudicial. See Dangler at ¶ 13, citing State v. Perry, 2004-Ohio-297, ¶ 14-15. The

test for prejudice is “whether the plea would have otherwise been made.” Id. at ¶ 16.

4.
{¶ 12} The Supreme Court of Ohio has carved out two limited exceptions to the

prejudice component of that rule in the criminal-plea context: (1) a trial court’s complete

failure to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C), State v. Sarkozy, 2008-Ohio-509, ¶ 22;

and (2) a trial court’s failure to explain the constitutional rights that a defendant waives

by pleading guilty or no contest, Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748, at ¶ 31. The Supreme Court

has identified those constitutional rights as the ones set forth in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c): the

right to a jury trial, the right to confront one’s accusers, the privilege against self-

incrimination, the right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses, and the right to

require the state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Dangler at ¶ 14, citing Veney

at ¶ 19.

{¶ 13} Where either exception occurs, courts are to presume that the plea was

entered involuntarily and unknowingly, and no showing of prejudice is required. Id. at ¶

14-15.

B. The Plea Hearing

{¶ 14} Before accepting Hills’ plea, the court first confirmed general information

about him—his education level and ability to read and write in English; that he was a

United States citizen; that he was not under the influence of any medication, drug, or

alcohol that would interfere with his understanding of the events in court; that he did not

suffer from any mental illness or disease; that he was clearheaded; and that no one had

threatened him or promised him anything to get him to enter into his plea other than the

promises in the plea agreement. Additionally, the court confirmed that Hills understood

5.
that it was not bound by the recommendations made by his attorney and the State

regarding his sentencing. Hills confirmed that he understood each statement.

{¶ 15} Hills then told the court that he was on community control in case number

CR 23-1282, that he had no other pending charges, and that he was under supervision in

Wood County and Upper Sandusky. The court explained that his guilty plea could

potentially affect his standing with the other courts. Hills confirmed that he still wanted

to enter a guilty plea.

{¶ 16} The court next asked Hills if he had time to consult with his attorney about

the case, whether his attorney had answered any questions he had and gone over any

evidence with him, and whether he was satisfied with his attorney’s advice and

representation. Hills answered yes to each question.

{¶ 17} The court went over the maximum possible penalties involved with each

charge and informed Hills of the nature and effect of his plea. It then explained that by

making the plea, Hills would be admitting to complete guilt; and that he was waiving his

rights to a jury trial, to require the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a

trial, to confront witnesses against him, and to have compulsory process for obtaining

witnesses in his favor. The court explained that if Hills went to trial, he could not be

compelled to testify against himself and that his silence could not be used against him to

try and prove his guilt. It then stated that by entering a plea, Hills would be limiting his

rights to appeal. Hills responded that he understood each statement.

{¶ 18} The court asked if Hills had any questions. He answered that he did not.

The court then confirmed that Hills’ signature was on the plea form, that he was entering

6.
his guilty plea voluntarily, and that he wanted to resolve the charges at the plea hearing.

Hills responded yes to each.

{¶ 19} Following this exchange, the court accepted Hills’ plea and scheduled a

hearing for sentencing.

{¶ 20} In his only assignment of error, Hills now focuses on four matters that he

believes the trial court failed to address during the plea hearing—1) the potential time

each felony carried; 2) whether the prison time he was facing was mandatory; 3) what the

full impact of his plea would be on his community control; and 4) whether the charges he

pled to carried presumptions of prison time. Hills believes that he was prevented from

fully understanding and appreciating the potential consequences of his plea, and as such,

he did not knowingly and intelligently plead guilty. We will address each allegation in

order.

i. Maximum Potential Sentences

{¶ 21} Hills first argues that the trial court did not explain the amount of potential

time each charge carried. He contends that the court should have told him that “a felony

of the Second degree has a presumption of prison time of between 2 to 8 years and a 4th

degree felony had a presumption of community control but if prison was imposed it could

be between 6 months and 18 months, at monthly increments. There was a misdemeanor

domestic violence conviction, which carried a maximum of 180 days; the time for this

penalty would operate concurrently with the felony penalty time.”

7.
{¶ 22} Looking to the transcript of the plea hearing, Hills’ allegation that the trial

court failed to inform him of the possible sentences is immediately contradicted by the

lengthy conversation between the trial court and Hills at the hearing:

The Court: Count 2 is a felony of the second degree. It subjects you to
indefinite sentencing, but the Court will have to determine a
max—a minimum term and the maximum minimum term
would be eight years for that charge. Do you understand that?
Hills: Yes.
The Court: On Count 3 the maximum penalty phase is 18 months in
prison and a $5,000 fine. Do you understand that?
Hills: Yes.
The Court: And in Count 5, the maximum penalty is 180 days in jail and
a thousand dollar fine.
Hills: Yes.

---

The Court: Now, because you’re subject to indefinite sentencing as it
relates to Count 2, means that you face both the minimum
term and a maximum indefinite term. Your minimum term is
selected from the range associated with that offense. So in
this case, two to eight years. Do you understand that?
Hills: Yes.
The Court: Then your maximum indefinite term is calculated by taking
one-half of whatever the minimum term is that’s imposed and
that’s added to it, becoming your maximum term. Do you
understand that?
Hills: Yes.
The Court: So in this scenario, if I were to impose two years as the
minimum term, what would your indefinite term be?
Hills: Indefinite should be two years—a year, right.
The Court: So one year would be added to it. So it would be two to three
years. Now, likewise if I were to impose 8 years as your
minimum term on Count 2, to get to your maximum indefinite

8.
term would take one half of that is 4, so it would be 8 to 12.
Do you understand that?
Hills: Yes. [(Emphasis added.)]
{¶ 23} The trial court conveyed exactly the same information that Hills contends

was missing from his plea hearing. As such, the court adequately informed Hills of the

potential maximum sentences he faced.

ii. Mandatory Prison Time

{¶ 24} Hills next argues that the trial court did not explain whether his prison time

would be mandatory

{¶ 25} “Under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a), the trial court must make sure that, before a

defendant pleads guilty to a felony, he or she understands (1) the nature of the charges;

(2) the maximum penalty involved, and, if applicable; (3) that the defendant is not

eligible for community control sanctions, i.e., prison is mandatory.” (Emphasis added.)

State v. Wyatt, 2017-Ohio-8319, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). “[T]he rule makes clear that the trial

court must orally advise a defendant of his or her ineligibility for community control.

There is no converse requirement that the trial court advise the defendant that he or she is

eligible for community control.” State v. Drzayich, 2016-Ohio-1398, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.),

citing State v. Floyd, 1993 WL 415287, *6 (4th Dist. Oct. 13, 1993).

{¶ 26} Hills was not subject to mandatory prison time. This is confirmed by his

written plea agreement: “I understand the MAXIMUM penalties COULD be: a

maximum indefinite prison term of a minimum of 9.5 years and a maximum of 13.5

years of which 0 is mandatory, during which I am NOT eligible for judicial release or

community control….” Accordingly, Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) did not apply, and the trial

9.
court did not err by not mentioning whether his maximum sentence included mandatory

prison time.

iii. Community Control in CR 2023-1282

{¶ 27} Hills’ third argument is that the trial court did not fully explain whether his

plea would impact his community control in case number CR 2023-1282.

{¶ 28} As a reminder, in CR 23-1282, Hills pled to attempted having a weapon

while under disability and was under community control when the incident in this case

occurred. Because of his charges in this case, Hills received a community control

violation charge in CR 23-1282. After his plea and sentencing in this case, Hills’

community control was revoked in CR 23-1282, and he was sentenced to 18 months

prison time for the violation of community control. The court ordered that the 18 months

be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in this case.

{¶ 29} A review of case law reveals that “Ohio appellate courts have almost

always held that a trial court need not warn a defendant of the potential for consecutive

sentences prior to accepting a guilty plea to multiple offenses. The only time courts

deviate from this rule is when the imposition of consecutive sentences is mandatory….”

State v. Whitman, 2021-Ohio-4510, ¶ 22 (6th Dist.). For example, in State v. Davis,

2025-Ohio-1188 (8th Dist.), a similar argument was made regarding the impact of a plea

on community control. In that case, Davis argued that the trial court erred by not

informing him that he could incur an additional penalty as a community control

violator—and, therefore, did not inform him of the “the maximum penalty involved”

under Crim. R. 11(C)(2)(a). Id. at ¶ 12.

10.
{¶ 30} The court disagreed, noting that the phrase “maximum penalty” in Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(a) refers to the charges for which Davis was entering a plea. Id. at ¶ 13. Thus,

“the trial court was only required to inform Davis of the maximum penalty associated

with the charges to which he was entering guilty pleas to comply with Crim.R.

11(C)(2)(a); the trial court was not required to inform Davis that his guilty plea would

trigger a potential consecutive sentence on his community-control violation.” Id. See also

State v. Ellis, 2020-Ohio-1130, ¶ 12 (5th Dist.); State v. Nelson, 2020-Ohio-6993, ¶ 47-51

(8th Dist.).

{¶ 31} Similarly here, the trial court was not required to inform Hills that his

guilty plea could trigger a potential new sentence on a community control violation.

Thus, the trial court would not have erred if it had failed to reference the impact Hills’

plea might have on his community control in CR 2023-1282.

{¶ 32} That being said, the trial court did acknowledge that Hills was on

community control in CR 2023-1282, and ensured that Hills understood that “each court

operates independently,” and “by entering a guilty plea here it could potentially affect

[his] standing in those other courts.”

{¶ 33} Accordingly, Hills’ argument is entirely meritless.

iv. Presumption of Prison Time

{¶ 34} Hills’ final allegation is that the trial court failed to inform him about the

presumptions each count carried—that felonious assault had a presumption of prison time

and that failure to stop after an accident had a presumption of community control.

11.
{¶ 35} As previously mentioned above, to comply with Crim.R. 11, a trial court is

only required to inform a defendant of the maximum possible penalty for an offense.

“There is no provision requiring the court to determine that the defendant has an

understanding of the statutory presumption in favor of incarceration….” State v.

Raymond, 2013-Ohio-3144, ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); see also State v. Stevenson, 2018-Ohio-2645,

¶ 2 (8th Dist.); State v. Gales, 1998 WL 698363, *3 (2d Dist. Oct. 9, 1998) (“It is one

thing to advise a defendant who has tendered a guilty plea that the defendant either is, or

is not, eligible for probation or, under the new sentencing statute, for a community

control sanction. It is quite another to advise a defendant of the statutory presumption in

favor of incarceration, and then to ascertain that the defendant understands that

presumption.”).

{¶ 36} As we have already discussed, the trial court clearly informed Hills of the

maximum penalties carried by each charge and received confirmation from Hills that he

understood. The court was not required to discuss presumptions and did not err by not

doing so.

III. Conclusion

{¶ 37} In sum, although Hills claims that his plea was not knowingly or

intelligently made because the trial court failed to inform him of potential consequences

of his sentence, our review of the record establishes that the trial court complied with the

constitutional and procedural safeguards in Crim.R. 11 to ensure that his plea was

knowingly and intelligently entered. As such, we find Hills’ only assignment of error not

well-taken.

12.
{¶ 38} Accordingly, we affirm the February 11, 2025 judgment of the Lucas

County Court of Common Pleas. Hills is ordered to pay any costs of this appeal under

App.R. 24.

Judgment affirmed.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to App.R. 27.
See also 6th Dist.Loc.App.R. 4.

Thomas J. Osowik, P.J. ____________________________
JUDGE
Christine E. Mayle, J.

---

Myron C. Duhart, J. JUDGE
CONCUR.

---

JUDGE

This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of
Ohio’s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported
version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court’s web site at:
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/ROD/docs/.

13.