State v. Simpson, 2013 Ohio 1695

Simpson pled guilty to Aggravated Robbery with a firearm specification (felony of the first degree).
Trial court advised sentences could be consecutive and noted prior sentences in two other Montgomery County cases (2011-CR-1156/1 and 2010-CR-4101).
Court sentenced Simpson to six years (three for the felony, three for the firearm spec.) to run consecutively to those two cases and concurrently to other counts in 2010-CR-4101.
Simpson appealed on two grounds: (1) whether consecutive sentencing was prohibited by former R.C. 2929.41(A); (2) whether his plea was knowing and voluntary without notice that sentences could run consecutively to his other cases.
Trial court interpreted a clerical error in R.C. 2929.41(A) and relied on R.C. 2929.14(C) to impose consecutive sentences, citing Hess as controlling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether consecutive sentences were permissible under corrected R.C. 2929.41(A).	Simpson argued the statute prohibited consecutive sentences.	Court relied on corrected interpretation aligning with R.C. 2929.14(C).	Consecutive sentences upheld; Hess controls.
Whether the plea was knowing and voluntary without advising consecutive sentencing.	Plea invalid because not informed of possible consecutive sentences.	Crim.R.11(C) satisfied; no requirement to state consecutive potential.	Plea knowing and voluntary; no need to inform consecutive potential.

State v. Hess, 2013-Ohio-10 (2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25144) (typo in R.C. 2929.41(A) reference; corrected to R.C. 2929.14(C))
State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130 (1988) (plea validity does not require warning about consecutive terms; max penalty suffices)
Barbee v. Ruth, 678 F.2d 634 (5th Cir. 1982) (constitutional sufficiency of informing maximum penalty, not total sentencing)
Dayton v. Turic, 2005-Ohio-131 (2d Dist. Montgomery) (appellate record limits consideration of evidence outside record)