State v. Parker, 2020 Ohio 414

In July 2018 Parker sold fentanyl to a confidential informant on multiple occasions; a subsequent search of his residence recovered fentanyl, tramadol, scales, money, phones, and personal papers.
Parker was indicted on multiple drug counts including several aggravated-trafficking charges and a forfeiture specification.
On October 23, 2018 Parker pleaded guilty to one count of aggravated trafficking (R.C. 2925.03(A)(1)), a second-degree felony, and to the forfeiture specification; all other counts were dismissed.
The trial court imposed a mandatory six-year prison term on November 27, 2018.
On appeal Parker raised two assignments of error: (1) ineffective assistance of counsel rendered his plea unknowing/ involuntary, and (2) the trial court erred in accepting a plea that was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary because the court misstated his eligibility for earned credit.
The court reviewed the plea colloquy, counsel’s advice regarding ‘‘bulk amount’’ classification, and Crim.R. 11 compliance and affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether counsel was ineffective so that the guilty plea was not knowing and voluntary	Parker: Counsel advised him to plead to a charge unsupported by the record (no July 20 sale) and to a second-degree count based on a "bulk amount" classification that Pountney allegedly precludes for fentanyl.	State: Parker admitted the prosecutor’s factual statement at the plea hearing; the record could have supported a July 20 sale; Pountney addressed only the "maximum daily dose" prong and not the 20-gram prong; counsel was not deficient and Parker was not prejudiced.	Overruled — no ineffective assistance; plea stands.
2. Whether the trial court improperly accepted a plea that was not knowing/intelligent/voluntary by misstating earned-credit eligibility	Parker: The court told him he might be eligible to earn credit toward his sentence, undermining voluntariness.	State: Crim.R.11 requires advising the maximum penalty (which the court did); there is no obligation to advise about earned credit; Parker understood he faced a mandatory prison term and no prejudice is shown.	Overruled — plea valid; the misinformation about earned credit was not prejudicial.

Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance test: deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Pountney, 152 Ohio St.3d 474 (2018) (construing "bulk amount" definition; concerned the maximum-daily-dose prong)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 (2008) (trial court must inform defendant of maximum sentence before accepting plea)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (to vacate plea for Crim.R.11 error defendant must show prejudice such that plea would not otherwise have been entered)