State v. Rusu, 2012 Ohio 2613

Rusu pleaded guilty to vehicular homicide (misdemeanor), theft (felony), and tampering with evidence (felony) after participating in trailer theft that proxmately caused Michael Hall's death.
The trial court informed him of a potential license suspension up to three years, but the actual maximum for class four suspension is up to five years.
The sentencing imposed a four-year driver’s license suspension and a four-year prison term, along with costs and attorney fees.
The court’s sentencing entry incorrectly cited a drug-suspension statute (R.C. 2925.11(E)(2)) for license suspension, instead of statutes governing vehicular homicide penalties.
The trial court later remanded for potential clerical correction and to address court costs/fees issues, prompting further proceedings.
This appeal challenges: plea adequacy, ineffective assistance, improper costs/fees, clerical sentencing errors, and sentencing on uncharged conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the plea knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered?	Rusu argues the plea was defective because the maximum suspension was misstated.	Rusu contends the misstatement deprived him of informed consent and prejudiced his decision to plead guilty.	Partial Crim.R. 11 compliance; no prejudice shown; plea affirmed.
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance regarding the plea?	Rusu claims counsel failed to object to the plea defect.	Rusu asserts ineffective assistance due to lack of objection to incorrect maximum penalty.	No prejudice; ineffective assistance rejected.
Did the court err by imposing costs and attorney fees without proper oral notification of payment obligations?	Rusu contends costs and fees were imposed without timely indigency inquiry.	State argues ordinary procedure applies and alleged error is harmless.	Remanded to allow waivers and determine ability to pay.
Did the sentencing contain a clerical error and impermissibly relate to uncharged conduct?	Rusu asserts sentencing incorrectly cited a drug-suspension statute and punished conduct not charged.	Rusu argues improper statute used and potential sentencing beyond charged offenses.	Clerical error sustained; remanded for correction along with costs/fees procedures.

State v. Dowdell, 9th Dist. No. 25930, 2012-Ohio-1326 (9th Dist. 2012) (plea validity depends on knowing, voluntary, intelligent waiver)
State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211, 2007-Ohio-6093 (Ohio Supreme Court 2007) (Crim.R. 11 distinctions for felonies vs misdemeanors)
State v. Souris, 9th Dist. No. 24550, 2009-Ohio-3562 (9th Dist. 2009) (maximum penalty information required in felony plea)
State v. Hubbard, 9th Dist. No. 25141, 2011-Ohio-2770 (9th Dist. 2011) (substantial compliance standard for non-constitutional rights)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 1990 (Ohio 1990) (Nero: totality of circumstances governs waiver understanding)
State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748 (Ohio Supreme Court 2008) (partial compliance analysis when Crim.R. 11 is not fully satisfied)
State v. Wagner, 2009-Ohio-2790 (9th Dist. 2009) (partial compliance where maximum penalty information is inaccurate)
State v. Joseph, 125 Ohio St.3d 76, 2010-Ohio-954 (Ohio Supreme Court 2010) (oral notification of costs required; indigency waiver procedure available)
State v. Marrero, 2011-Ohio-3745 (9th Dist. 2011) (ability-to-pay determination for court-appointed fees)
State v. Stallworth, 2011-Ohio-4492 (9th Dist. 2011) (remand for waiver of court costs when indigent status raised)