State v. Colvin, 70 N.E.3d 1012

Appellant Dewaylyn Colvin pled guilty (Jan. 30, 2013) to multiple drug offenses and a first-degree count of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity (count 16); plea agreement amended some counts and described penalties.
The written plea and the court’s plea colloquy characterized count 16 as a prison term "presumed but not mandatory;" counts 8, 9, 10 were described as mandatory.
At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate 11-year prison term (7 years on counts 8–10; 4 years on count 16) but did not expressly label any term "mandatory" in the oral pronouncement or the journal entry.
After sentencing Colvin filed multiple postsentence motions (including successive Crim.R. 32.1 motions) arguing: (1) the sentence on count 16 was mandatory under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) due to a prior first-degree felony (involuntary manslaughter), making the sentence void; and (2) the plea was infirm under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) because he was misadvised about count 16’s mandatory status.
Trial court denied the successive motions; appeal followed. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting both the void-sentence and plea-withdrawal claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Colvin)	Held
Whether the failure to label the count‑16 term "mandatory" rendered the sentence void under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6)	Sentence valid because the imposed term is within statutory range; omission of the word "mandatory" does not make the sanction void and void‑sanction doctrine is narrow	Count 16 was mandatory due to prior first‑degree felony; because court did not specify the term as mandatory the sentence is void and requires resentencing	Affirmed: omission of the label does not render the sentence void; mandatory nature attaches by operation of law and void‑sanction doctrine doesn’t extend here
Whether the plea must be withdrawn for failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) (advising maximum penalty and ineligibility for community control)	Successive post‑sentence motion is barred by res judicata; defendant could have raised the advice issue earlier and failed to meet manifest‑injustice standard	Misadvisement that count 16 was nonmandatory violated Crim.R. 11 and invalidated plea; no need to show prejudice under Sarkozy	Affirmed: claim is barred as successive (res judicata); defendant failed to show manifest injustice; substantial‑compliance/manifest‑injustice framework applies

State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (void‑sentence relief limited; may attack facially illegal sentences)
State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (omission of the word "mandatory" in entry does not make sentence non‑mandatory; mandatory status may attach by law)
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (failure to advise of mandatory postrelease control can support plea withdrawal)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (Crim.R. 11 colloquy must convey accurate information; use substantial‑compliance test for nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. Johnson, 116 Ohio St.3d 541 (R.C. 2929.13(F) addresses mandatory prison terms)
State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151 (void‑sanction doctrine applied sparingly; analogy to mandatory fines/driver’s license suspensions)
State v. Holdcroft, 137 Ohio St.3d 526 (void‑sanction doctrine narrow; not to be broadly applied)