State v. Green, 2017 Ohio 45

Kalyn R. Green was indicted on multiple drug-related counts, including aggravated trafficking, illegal assembly of chemicals for drug manufacture, illegal manufacture, endangering children, and engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity. Several charges were later dismissed as part of plea proceedings.
On February 5, 2016, Green pleaded guilty to aggravated trafficking (third-degree felony) and illegal assembly of chemicals (second-degree felony); remaining counts were dismissed.
The court sentenced Green to 24 months on the trafficking count and 3 years on the assembly count, to be served consecutively (aggregate five years), with three years of postrelease control; sentence was concurrent with a Seneca County sentence and a one-year license suspension was imposed.
Defense counsel pursued an Anders review on appeal, concluding the appeal was frivolous and identifying two potential issues: (1) whether the court made statutorily required findings for consecutive sentences, and (2) whether the plea colloquy complied with Crim.R. 11.
The court reviewed the transcripts of the original and vacated plea/sentencing and the subsequent plea/sentencing hearing, and independently examined the record as required under Anders.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court made required findings before imposing consecutive sentences under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	State: Court made the necessary statutory findings at sentencing and resentencing.	Green: Court merely adopted prior findings (from vacated hearing) and failed to make new, adequate findings at the February 5 hearing.	Court: Findings were expressly made at the February 5 hearing; compliance satisfied (no requirement to provide detailed reasons).
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 when accepting Green’s guilty plea	State: Court strictly complied with constitutional aspects and substantially complied with nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11.	Green: Trial court failed to fully comply with Crim.R. 11(C), rendering the plea invalid.	Court: Transcript shows strict compliance with constitutional advisements and substantial compliance with nonconstitutional advisements; plea accepted properly.

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967) (procedure when appointed counsel seeks to withdraw on grounds of frivolous appeal)
State v. Duncan, 57 Ohio App.2d 93 (Ohio App. 1978) (Ohio appellate procedure on counsel withdrawal under Anders)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (Ohio 1981) (Crim.R. 11 requires intelligible explanation of constitutional rights; strict compliance for constitutional rights)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (substantial compliance standard for nonconstitutional Crim.R. 11 advisements)
State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 (Ohio 1977) (substantial compliance suffices for nonconstitutional aspects of plea advisements)
State v. Colbert, 71 Ohio App.3d 734 (Ohio App. 1991) (trial court must strictly comply with Crim.R. 11 for constitutional rights)