State v. Gabbard, 2021 Ohio 3646

Shane M. Gabbard was indicted for, among other counts, aggravated possession of drugs (second-degree felony) for possession of 19.34 grams of methamphetamine on March 28, 2019.
Gabbard pled guilty on September 11, 2019; the trial court advised him the maximum penalty was a mandatory, definite prison term "up to eight years" and that a prison term was mandatory (range 2–8 years).
On October 15, 2019 the trial court imposed a five-year mandatory, definite prison term for the aggravated-possession count.
The Reagan Tokes Law became effective March 22, 2019; Gabbard’s offense occurred after that date, making the offense subject to Ohio’s indefinite-sentencing scheme (indefinite term range 8–12 years for second-degree felonies under that law).
On appeal Gabbard challenged (1) the legality of the definite five-year sentence (should have been indefinite under Reagan Tokes) and (2) the validity of his plea, claiming the court’s Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) advisement about the maximum penalty was inaccurate and rendered his plea unknowing and involuntary.
The State conceded error on both points; the court agreed on sentencing error but rejected Gabbard’s claim that his plea was involuntary because he failed to show prejudice from the inaccurate maximum-penalty advisement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether imposition of a definite 5-year mandatory sentence was lawful when offense occurred after Reagan Tokes became effective	State conceded the sentence was erroneous and that Reagan Tokes required an indefinite sentence	Gabbard argued the court should have imposed an indefinite sentence under Reagan Tokes (8–12 yrs range)	Court agreed with State and Gabbard: sentence was contrary to law; reversed in part and remanded for resentencing under Reagan Tokes
2. Whether Gabbard's guilty plea was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when court misstated the maximum penalty (said mandatory 8 yrs rather than indefinite 8–12 yrs)	State conceded error but the court should nonetheless require prejudice showing; the misstatement was not a complete Crim.R. 11 failure	Gabbard argued the incorrect maximum-penalty advisement invalidated his plea	Court held the court’s advisement was inaccurate but not a complete failure under Dangler; Gabbard did not demonstrate prejudice on the face of the record, so plea stands; assignment overruled

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (guilty plea must be knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made)
State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163 (1975) (Crim.R. 11 ensures adequate plea-colloquy record)
State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (2020) (framework for reviewing Crim.R. 11 failures; prejudice requirement and exceptions)
State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 (2018) (Crim.R. 11(C) governs trial-court plea proceedings in felonies)
Hayward v. Summa Health Sys./Akron City Hosp., 139 Ohio St.3d 238 (2014) (prejudice must be shown "on the face of the record")