State v. Kauffman, 2021 Ohio 1584

Jason Kauffman was indicted for aggravated robbery (first-degree felony, with firearm specifications) and misdemeanor theft; case proceeded to trial with surveillance video and victim ID evidence.
After two days of trial, parties reached a plea agreement: Kauffman would plead guilty to robbery as amended to a third-degree felony (R.C. 2911.02(A)(3)), firearm specifications deleted, Count 2 dismissed, and an agreed sentence of four years.
The trial court conducted Crim.R. 11 colloquies at plea and at resentencing (to account for the Reagan Tokes Law); Kauffman affirmed understanding of rights, the plea terms, and that the court could proceed to sentencing.
The court imposed the agreed four-year term, restitution of $50, no contact with the victim, costs, and postrelease control.
The written judgment entry mistakenly included firearm specifications that were not part of the plea or the oral sentence. Kauffman appealed, arguing (1) Crim.R. 11 error for failing to advise the effect of a guilty plea and (2) discrepancy in the sentencing entry.
The court affirmed the conviction but remanded solely for the trial court to issue a nunc pro tunc entry deleting the erroneous firearm specifications.

Issue	State's Argument	Kauffman's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court violated Crim.R. 11 by failing to inform defendant of the effect of a guilty plea	The court complied with Crim.R. 11: it informed Kauffman of the charge, rights waived, possible penalties, and that the court could proceed to sentencing; Kauffman admitted guilt at the plea hearing	The court did not advise that a guilty plea is a complete admission of guilt, so Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b) was not fully satisfied	No reversible error: trial court complied sufficiently; because effect-of-plea advisement is nonconstitutional, Kauffman must show prejudice and did not (he admitted guilt and made no assertion of innocence)
Whether the written sentencing entry conflicts with the oral sentence by including firearm specifications	N/A (state conceded clerical error)	The sentencing entry incorrectly included firearm specifications not in plea or oral sentence; entry must be corrected	Remanded for limited nunc pro tunc correction to delete the firearm specifications

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (establishes guilty plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily)
State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 (sets the three-step Crim.R. 11 compliance inquiry and clarifies prejudice framework)
State v. Stone, 43 Ohio St.2d 163 (Crim.R. 11 ensures trial court personally informs defendant of rights and consequences)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (no-prejudice exception when court fails to explain constitutional rights in Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c))
State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 (same no-prejudice exception where court completely fails to comply with a portion of Crim.R. 11(C))
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (test for prejudice is whether the plea would have otherwise been made)
Hayward v. Summa Health Sys., 139 Ohio St.3d 238 (prejudice must appear on the face of the record)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (when defendant does not assert actual innocence, failure to advise effect of plea is presumed not prejudicial)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (failure to cover nonconstitutional aspects of Crim.R. 11 requires defendant to show prejudice)
State v. Ketterer, 111 Ohio St.3d 70 (challenges to certain pretrial motions are precluded after a guilty plea)