State v. Houston, 2014 Ohio 2827

Houston pled no contest to multiple offenses and was sentenced to a ten-year, agreed term consecutive to other charges.
Indictment listed Count 4 as a second-degree felony; bond agreement also labeled Count 4 as second-degree.
At change of plea, Count 4 was described as a third-degree felony; several forms signed by Houston listed Count 4 as third degree.
Plea was part of a negotiated agreement under Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2953.08(D), with Count 4 expressly tied to a three-year term.
Trial court informed Houston of maximum penalties and rights; a scrivener’s error appears to have misdesignated Count 4, but the plea was to a third-degree felony and the sentence was later upheld.
Court held that substantial compliance with Crim.R.11(C)(2) occurred and the plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Crim.R. 11(C)(2) was substantially complied with.	Houston argues lack of knowing, intelligent plea due to misstatement of max penalties.	Appellee contends totality of circumstances shows understanding; substantial compliance.	Yes; substantial compliance found; plea valid.

Puckett v. State, 2005-Ohio-164 (4th Dist. Scioto No.03CA2920) (establishes knowing, intelligent, voluntary plea via dialogue per Crim.R.11(C))
Johnson v. Ohio, 532 N.E.2d 1295 (1988) (Crim.R.11(C) dialogue requirement; syllabus)
Caplinger v. Caplinger, 664 N.E.2d 959 (4th Dist. 1995) (substantial compliance standard for Crim.R.11(C)(2)(a))
Nero v. State, 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990) (substantial compliance test; totality of the circumstances)
Underwood v. United States, 124 Ohio St.3d 365, 922 N.E.2d 923 (2010) (authorized by law; standards for review of sentence under 2953.08(D))
Adkins v. State, 2012-Ohio-2445 (4th Dist. Washington No. 11CA30) (authorized by law analysis in plea/sentence context)
Royles v. State, 2007-Ohio-5348 (1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060-875, C-060-876) (review of plea validity where sentence is agreed)