State v. Smith, 2023 Ohio 598

In Feb. 2022 Gage L. Smith was charged with identity fraud (R.C. 2913.49(B)(1), F2), theft from an elderly/disabled person (R.C. 2913.02(A)(1), F2), and possession of methamphetamine (R.C. 2925.11(A), F5).
Victim was Smith's disabled father; Bank of America notified the father of accounts opened in his name with Smith’s billing address; discovered liabilities totaled $46,846.51.
Smith pled guilty to all three counts after a plea colloquy in which the court initially misstated the maximum fine (stated $15,000) then read the plea form showing $50,000 for the elderly-victim theft statute.
At sentencing the court imposed concurrent prison terms producing an aggregate minimum term of 6 years and an indefinite maximum of 9 years, ordered restitution of $46,846.51, and imposed no fine.
Smith appealed, raising two assignments: (1) plea invalid because of incorrect advisement of maximum fine under Crim.R. 11 and R.C. 2929.18; (2) sentence disproportional and court failed to properly consider R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 factors and the joint recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the plea was invalid because the court misstated the maximum fine in violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2) and R.C. 2929.18	State: Court substantially complied with Crim.R. 11; defendant suffered no prejudice; advisement was adequate	Smith: Court gave inconsistent advisals (15k vs 50k) on max fine for elderly-victim theft, undermining knowing/voluntary plea	Court: Overruled. Substantial compliance with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a); no prejudice shown; and no fine was imposed.
Whether the sentence was disproportionate or contrary to law for failing to consider R.C. 2929.11/2929.12 factors or to follow the joint recommendation	State: Sentence was within statutory range and court considered statutory factors; jointly recommended term is nonbinding	Smith: Court ignored his lack of priors, addiction, remorse, and the joint 4-year-11-month recommendation	Court: Overruled. Sentence within statutory range; court stated it considered statutory factors; joint recommendation is nonbinding; no clear-and-convincing evidence sentence is contrary to law.

State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525 (1996) (plea must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary)
State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 (2008) (distinguishes strict vs substantial compliance under Crim.R. 11)
State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (substantial-compliance test for nonconstitutional plea advisements)
State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473 (1981) (court may inspect totality of record to determine meaningful advisement)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing standard)
State v. Marcum, 146 Ohio St.3d 516 (2016) (appellate standard of review for felony sentences under R.C. 2953.08)
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St.3d 365 (2010) (plea recommendations are nonbinding on sentencing court)