Absent a criminal defendant’s assertion of actual innocence of a charge, a trial court can presume the defendant understands that pleading guilty is a complete admission of guilt to the crime, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Court rejected the attempt of Albert Fontanez to withdraw his guilty pleas to several violent crimes because the trial judge failed to inform him at sentencing that his pleas were a complete admission of guilt to all the charges. After hearing victims testify at his sentencing, Fontanez disputed some of the descriptions of the events.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that ideally a trial judge would strictly comply with the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure and ensure that a defendant is informed that a guilty plea constitutes an admission of guilt to the charge. However, considering the common definition of “guilt,” a defendant who decides to plead guilty properly understands it is an admission to the charge, he wrote.

Justice Fischer wrote it is natural that a victim and the perpetrator of a crime might have different characterizations of what happened, but an indictment is based on the elements that constitute a crime. The defendant considers whether to plead guilty to the charge in the indictment.

“But a defendant’s disagreement with how the offense is characterized outside of the indictment does not overcome the presumption that the defendant understands that pleading guilty is a complete admission of guilt,” he wrote.

The Court affirmed the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which found that the trial court could reject Fontanez’s last-minute attempt to withdraw his guilty plea.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices R. Patrick DeWine, Joseph T. Deters, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined Justice Fischer’s opinion.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Jennifer Brunner maintained the majority’s decision gives trial judges the ability to accept guilty pleas without a defendant fully understanding the consequences of the plea. She wrote many defendants accept plea deals primarily based on the length of the proposed sentence.

Based on the transcript of the court proceedings, it appeared Fontanez took the deal to decrease his potential prison time. This, combined with his disagreements with the victims’ statements, suggested he did not fully understand the effects of his guilty plea, she wrote.

Crime Spree Leads to Multiple Charges
Fontanez embarked on a yearlong crime spree beginning in June 2021 that included hitting his neighbor with his car, beating a man with a baseball bat, and leading police on a high-speed chase on Interstate 71 in a stolen car, reaching speeds of 120 mph.

The Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office charged him with 18 felonies stemming from five separate criminal cases. Fontanez was presented with a bill of particulars, outlining the offenses of which he was accused.

The prosecutor offered him a plea agreement to resolve all five cases. In exchange for his pleas, the state would downgrade some of his most serious offenses and drop several of the lesser offenses. The charges would decrease from 18 to nine.

In June 2023, about a month before his trial was to begin, the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court conducted a pretrial hearing where the judge explained the charges against Fontanez and the potential sentence for each charge. Fontanez was presented with the plea agreement, and while he did not initially accept it, he did after conferring with his attorney. The trial court asked Fontanez if he understood the charges against him, and he said he did.

The trial judge engaged Fontanez in a plea colloquy, where the court read the amended charges agreed to in the plea deal, listing each element of each offense, identifying the victims involved, and providing other details of the offenses. Fontanez responded to each charge by pleading guilty.

During the colloquy, the judge told Fontanez he would not be sentenced that day, but instead a sentencing hearing would be scheduled, and any named victim would have a chance to speak.

Plea Agreement Unravels at Hearing
Fontanez’s sentencing hearing occurred about a month later, and before the hearing, prosecutors notified Fontanez that he had been indicted in two additional cases that were not part of the plea deal. The trial judge reviewed the plea agreement with Fontanez and acknowledged the two new pending cases, but indicated those cases did not factor into the court’s sentencing decision for the cases in which he pleaded guilty.

The deal began to unravel when the victims of Fontanez’s offenses testified. Fontanez interrupted one of the victims, and the judge admonished him to pay attention and show respect.

Fontanez told the court he did not agree with how the victims expressed what happened, but indicated he was “willing to take fault for my part in it 100 percent.” He questioned what made what the victims said “factual.” The judge explained that by pleading guilty, Fontanez had already admitted to the facts alleged in the amended indictment.

Fontanez asked to retract his guilty pleas. The judge asked him why he wanted to withdraw his pleas, and he said he would not have pled had he known about the two other pending cases. After a brief exchange, the court established that Fontanez and his attorney knew about the pending cases before the sentencing hearing, and when asked if there were any other reasons to withdraw his pleas, Fontanez’s attorney said, “Other than a change of heart, your honor, no.”

The trial court denied Fontanez’s request to withdraw his pleas and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. Fontanez appealed to the Eighth District, arguing his rights were violated because the trial court accepted his guilty pleas without informing him of the effect of his pleas.

The Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s decision and recognized its ruling conflicted with decisions by two other appellate courts. Fontanez appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear his case and address the conflict among the appellate courts.

Supreme Court Analyzed Plea Requirements
Justice Fischer explained that Criminal Rule 11 governs plea agreements and the acceptance of pleas. Because of the seriousness of pleading guilty to a crime, a sentencing court must ensure a defendant’s plea is made “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily,” otherwise it is invalid, he noted.

Rule 11(C) places certain requirements on a court before it can accept a guilty plea in felony cases. The requirement includes a judge confirming that the defendant understands the nature of the charges, the maximum penalty, the effects of pleading guilty, and the awareness that the defendant is waiving certain constitutional rights.

“Again, we take a moment to emphasize that exact compliance with Crim.R. 11 is the best practice to ensure that pleas are entered into knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily,” the opinion stated.

The Court stated that less than exact compliance does not invalidate a guilty plea. The Court explained that defendants can seek to vacate pleas by showing they were prejudiced by a trial court’s omission of any of the Rule 11 requirements.

The opinion noted that a defendant does not have to demonstrate harm from the flawed plea agreement proceeding if the trial court “completely failed” to follow Rule 11. The Court found a complete failure occurs when the court fails to inform the defendant of a constitutionally guaranteed right, such as the right against self-incrimination, the right to a jury trial, or the right to confront an accuser.

The right to be informed that the guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt is not a constitutional right, the Court stated. Fontanez had to demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure to inform him of his complete admission.

The Court recognized that Fontanez did not fully agree with the victims' characterization of the crimes, but was informed of each element of each crime in his indictment. He also did not claim to be innocent of any of the charges. Fontanez is presumed to have understood his guilty pleas were a complete admission of his guilt, the Court concluded.

Ruling Gives Too Much Leeway to Plea Deals, Dissent Maintained
In her dissent, Justice Brunner wrote that accepting plea deals without assuring a defendant understands the plea is a complete admission of guilt makes it harder to guarantee that the accused’s rights are protected. Even though the majority opinion stressed exact compliance with Rule 11, the opinion gives “trial courts the greenlight to skip the requirement” that a defendant fully understands the plea, she stated.

Justice Brunner wrote that the Court gives trial courts an excuse not to comply with the rule, and the Court should either propose an amendment to Rule 11 to ensure the rule is followed or provide trial courts with additional tools, such as standardized plea forms, to ensure a defendant’s due process rights are protected.

2024-1464. State v. Fontanez, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-3281.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.