State v. Gumm, 2022 Ohio 2287

Appellant Leslie Gumm was indicted on multiple counts including burglary, grand theft (firearms), theft, and firearm-related offenses; the state later agreed to dismiss several counts.
At the September 22, 2021 plea hearing there was pervasive confusion and multiple misstatements about which counts and statutes the defendant was pleading to and about applicable penalties; the plea colloquy and plea sheet referenced incorrect count numbers and statutory subsections.
The court accepted guilty pleas to ten counts at the hearing, but a subsequent nunc pro tunc entry amended the burglary statutes, dismissed additional counts, and altered which counts remained — changes the defendant did not personally re-accept in court.
Sentencing entries contained inconsistent terms; the trial court ultimately imposed an aggregate 10-year prison term, then issued a nunc pro tunc judgment altering plea and dismissal entries without a new in-court plea colloquy.
The Sixth District concluded the plea colloquy failed to satisfy Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) (the court could not reasonably determine the plea was voluntary and that the defendant understood the nature of the charges and maximum penalties); it reversed and remanded, finding the plea invalid. Remaining assignments of error were rendered moot.

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
1. Was the guilty plea knowing, intelligent, and voluntary when the written nunc pro tunc amended counts/statutes without a new in-court plea?	Plea invalid because trial court accepted plea to different counts/statutes than later reflected; no new colloquy after nunc pro tunc.	Errors were clerical/caused by an incomplete plea sheet and could be corrected; (state ultimately conceded confusion warranted vacatur).	Court: Plea invalid; trial court failed to comply with Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a); reversal and remand.
2. Were the 60-month sentences on Counts 1–2 lawful under the amended burglary statute and applicable sentencing provisions?	Sentences contrary to law and void under applicable statutes.	Sentences were within authority (or otherwise defensible).	Moot in view of reversal of plea.
3. Did defense counsel provide ineffective assistance by failing to object to plain error at plea/sentencing?	Counsel failed to object to the plea/sentencing errors; prejudice resulted.	Any claim is moot given plea vacatur; no reversible prejudice shown.	Moot.
4. Did the trial judge exhibit bias leading to harsher sentencing and violations of due process/equal protection?	Judge was biased and imposed harsher sentence; rights to due process/equal protection violated.	Claims unsupported and rendered moot by reversal.	Moot.

State v. Engle, 660 N.E.2d 450 (Ohio 1996) (plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily)
State v. Sarkozy, 881 N.E.2d 1224 (Ohio 2008) (Crim.R.11 prejudice requirement excused when court completely fails to comply with rule)
State v. Dangler, 164 N.E.3d 286 (Ohio 2020) (discusses standard for establishing error and prejudice on appeal and the Sarkozy exception)