State v. Gonzalez, 2019 Ohio 4882

Carlos A. Gonzalez pleaded guilty to: (1) having weapons while under disability (3rd-degree felony); (2) trafficking in cocaine (5th-degree felony, with forfeiture); and (3) failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer (3rd-degree felony). Remaining counts were dismissed.
The trial court sentenced Gonzalez to concurrent terms for the first two counts and a consecutive three-year term for the failure-to-comply count, yielding a total aggregate sentence of six years. $417 was forfeited.
R.C. 2921.331(D) mandates that a prison term for failure to comply be served consecutively to any other prison term imposed.
At plea colloquy the court recited the maximum penalties for each offense but did not personally advise Gonzalez that a prison term on the failure-to-comply count must run consecutively.
Defense counsel and the prosecutor discussed the mandatory-consecutive nature on the record after pleas were accepted, and Gonzalez expressed confusion about whether the count was a misdemeanor.
The issue on appeal: whether the trial court’s omission violated Crim.R. 11 such that Gonzalez’s guilty plea to the failure-to-comply count was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.

Issue	State's Argument	Gonzalez's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court’s plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11 where R.C. 2921.331(D) requires any prison term for failure to comply to be served consecutively	The record (including prosecutor and defense counsel statements) shows Gonzalez understood he faced a three-year maximum and that the prison term would run consecutively; thus the court substantially complied	The court did not personally inform Gonzalez that a prison sentence for failure to comply must be consecutive; Gonzalez was confused on the record and therefore the plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made	The court reversed: trial judge failed to comply with Crim.R. 11 by not personally informing Gonzalez of the mandatory-consecutive nature; the plea to the failure-to-comply count is vacated and the case is remanded. No prejudice analysis was required because the court did not even partially comply.

State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (discusses literal/structured Crim.R. 11 compliance and multi-tiered review when the rule is not literally followed)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (Crim.R. 11 substantial-compliance test focuses on defendant’s subjective understanding)
State v. Ricks, 53 Ohio App.2d 244 (9th Dist. 1977) (a plea understanding should include whether sentences may be concurrent or consecutive)
State v. Anderson, 108 Ohio App.3d 5 (9th Dist. 1995) (information from counsel does not substitute for the trial court’s personal Crim.R. 11 admonitions)