State v. Conner, 2021 Ohio 1769

Andrew H. Conner was indicted on multiple felony counts; he entered a negotiated guilty plea to three counts (burglary, amended robbery, breaking and entering) and the State dismissed the remaining counts.
The plea agreement included a joint-sentencing recommendation: consecutive terms totaling an aggregate of an indefinite 6–9 year term plus fixed terms, forfeiture, restitution, and credit for jail time.
At the change-of-plea hearing the trial court advised Conner of the charges and the maximum penalties for each individual offense and accepted the plea; a presentence investigation and sentencing followed.
Conner appealed, arguing his plea was involuntary because the court failed at the plea hearing to advise him that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) could rebut the presumption of release after the minimum term under R.C. 2967.271 (the Reagan Tokes framework).
The appellate court reviewed whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) (maximum penalty advisement) under a substantial-compliance/plain-error framework and whether Conner demonstrated prejudice from any omission.
The court concluded the trial court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11, that there was no plain error, and affirmed the conviction and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure at the plea hearing to inform defendant that ODRC may rebut the presumption of release under R.C. 2967.271 rendered the plea involuntary	Trial court need only advise of the maximum penalty for each individual offense; no requirement to explain "stated prison term" or ODRC rebuttal at plea hearing; substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11	Plea was not knowing/voluntary because court did not explain that the maximum could be tied to an indefinite term subject to ODRC rebuttal under Reagan Tokes	Court held Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) was substantially complied with as to per‑offense maximums; no plain error and no demonstrated prejudice; affirmed

State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2008) (distinguishes strict compliance for constitutional advisements from substantial compliance for nonconstitutional advisements under Crim.R. 11)
State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (Ohio 2020) (explains prejudice requirement when nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 warnings are omitted)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (Ohio 2006) (a sentence is the sanction imposed for each separate, individual offense)
State v. Awan, 22 Ohio St.3d 120 (Ohio 1986) (appellate waiver doctrine for unpreserved trial errors)
State v. Cargile, 123 Ohio St.3d 343 (Ohio 2009) (reinforces waiver principles and appellate review limitations)
State v. Kelley, 57 Ohio St.3d 127 (Ohio 1991) (standard for reviewing whether a guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)