State v. Cutlip, 2012 Ohio 5790

Defendant-appellant Lewis Cutlip pled guilty to one count of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor in a four-count indictment; dismissal of Counts I, III, IV followed the plea.
Court sentenced Cutlip to 18 months in prison with mandatory five-year post-release control and designated him as a Tier II sex offender.
Trial court informed about some rights under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) but not necessarily with the exact language of the rule.
Defendant challenges (1) the adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 advisement of rights, and (2) the post-release control consequences not fully explained at sentencing.
Appellate court discusses whether the pleas and advisements complied with Crim.R. 11 and whether any post-release control information was properly conveyed and remands for post-release control sentencing procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Cutlip’s Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) advisement adequate?	Cutlip argues the court failed to follow Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) precisely.	Cutlip contends the advisement did not properly inform him of rights before pleading.	Yes; the court followed Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) sufficiently by addressing rights and form signing (no reversal).
Was the post-release control consequence information adequately conveyed at sentencing?	State asserts any technical omission was harmless.	Cutlip was not informed of potential parole-board penalties for violation.	Remand for proper post-release control notice and proceedings; sustained for post-release issue; otherwise affirmed.

State v. Anderson, 108 Ohio App.3d 5 (9th Dist.1995) (informs rights; adequate Crim.R.11 dialogue suffices)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (record must demonstrate understanding of rights; proper advisement or review)
State v. Thomas, 116 Ohio App.3d 530 (2d Dist.1996) (substantial compliance acceptable when rights explained reasonably)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (Crim.R.11 rights need not be stated verbatim if rights explained)