State v. Kinney, 105 N.E.3d 603

Darrell Kinney pleaded guilty to multiple counts arising from an armed home invasion: two aggravated burglaries, two aggravated robberies, two kidnappings (each with three-year firearm specifications), carrying a concealed weapon, and vandalism; other counts were dismissed in exchange for the plea.
The trial court engaged in a Crim.R. 11 colloquy and accepted the pleas; the written plea form initially mischaracterized mandatory time for the first-degree felonies.
Later the court clarified on the record that the underlying first-degree felonies carried mandatory prison terms, corrected the plea form (defense counsel initialed changes) but Kinney did not re-sign the form. The court and counsel repeatedly told Kinney the mandatory time on the underlying counts would not affect his sentence or eligibility for judicial release, and that he could file for judicial release after serving 18 years (the gun-spec minimums).
At sentencing the court imposed an aggregate term of 34 years, 33 years of which was mandatory. The state argued mandatory terms applied under R.C. 2929.13(F)(6) because Kinney had a prior second-degree felony.
Kinney appealed, arguing his pleas were not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary under Crim.R. 11 and, alternatively, that the sentence improperly failed to merge allied offenses and to make required consecutive-sentence findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court complied with Crim.R. 11 when accepting Kinney's guilty pleas	The State argued the plea colloquy and amended plea form sufficiently informed Kinney and that he repeatedly chose to proceed, so any infirmity was not prejudicial	Kinney argued he was misled about the mandatory nature of the underlying first‑degree felony terms and his eligibility/timing for judicial release, so his plea was not knowing, intelligent, or voluntary	Court reversed: trial court failed to substantially comply with Crim.R. 11 by inaccurately advising about mandatory time and judicial‑release consequences; prejudice shown because misinformation affected plea decision
Whether the sentences should be reviewed for allied‑offense merger and proper consecutive-sentence findings	State maintained sentence lawful given plea and statutory mandatory terms	Kinney argued counts were allied and trial court failed necessary findings for consecutive terms	Held moot: appellate court did not reach merits because plea acceptance error required reversal and remand

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (defendant must enter plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 (Crim.R. 11 required advisements for guilty pleas)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (distinguishing strict vs. substantial compliance under Crim.R. 11)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (definition of substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (prejudice test when court fails to comply with nonconstitutional advisements)
State v. Ware, 141 Ohio St.3d 160 (mandatory prison terms affect judicial‑release eligibility)
State v. Taylor, 113 Ohio St.3d 297 (inaccurate advice about judicial release can invalidate a plea)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (plea invalid where court provided expanded but inaccurate legal advice)