State v. Amin, 2023 Ohio 3761

Kalrav T. Amin was indicted for aggravated arson and pleaded guilty to amended charge of Attempted Aggravated Arson (second-degree felony) on January 24, 2023.
Plea agreement listed potential penalties: definite prison 2–8 years, Reagan Tokes indefinite exposure up to 12 years, mandatory post-release control up to 3 years (not less than 18 months), and fines; Amin acknowledged she understood the listed penalties.
At the plea colloquy the prosecutor described the penalties but gave mixed/misleading statements (calling a “definite” 2–8 year term while also invoking Reagan Tokes’ indefinite maximum); the trial judge declined to recite the penalties verbatim and relied on the plea agreement and parties’ statements.
The trial court sentenced Amin to 2 years’ imprisonment, post-release control, and a $5,000 fine on March 7, 2023.
Amin appealed, arguing (1) her plea was not knowing/voluntary because the court failed to personally and accurately advise her of maximum penalties, Reagan Tokes, and post-release control, and (2) the court failed to give required SB 201/2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing.
The court held the plea colloquy was deficient—the judge failed to personally explain the maximum penalty and clarify Reagan Tokes’ definite vs. indefinite components, relying on the prosecutor’s incorrect statement—vacated the plea and remanded; sentencing-notice error was conceded but rendered moot by vacatur.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Amin’s plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because the court did not personally advise the maximum penalty and relied on prosecutor’s statement	The plea agreement listed penalties and Amin affirmed she understood them; the colloquy was sufficient	The court failed to personally and accurately explain the maximum penalty, Reagan Tokes scheme, and post-release control; misinformation vitiates voluntariness	Court held the judge failed to comply with Crim.R. 11(C); the plea was invalid and vacated
Whether the court gave required SB 201 / R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c) notifications at sentencing	The sentencing notices were not required or were adequate	Amin argued the court failed to give statutorily required notices	Court (and State) conceded the notifications were not given; normally requires remand for resentencing, but issue was moot because plea was vacated

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (trial court’s total failure to comply with portions of Crim.R. 11 eliminates defendant’s burden to show prejudice)
State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 (duty to ensure defendant understands maximum penalty is nonconstitutional and governed by Crim.R. 11)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (failure to mention mandatory post-release control can constitute complete Crim.R. 11 noncompliance)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (trial judge must convey accurate information so defendant understands consequences of plea)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Crim.R. 11 lays out the court’s personal-duty colloquy requirements)
State v. Tutt, 54 N.E.3d 619 (if proper information is provided, defendant’s understanding may be presumed)