A Trial Court Must Explain To A Defendant The “Maximum Penalty Involved” When Accepting a Plea of Guilty or No Contest

On May 5, 2020 the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that pursuant to Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a),
a trial court must explain to a defendant the “maximum penalty involved”
when accepting a plea of guilty or no contest. When a trial court explained
to a defendant sex offender who entered a plea of guilty or no contest
that he is subject to the sex-offender registration scheme of R.C. Chapter
2950 as part of his penalty, the defendant is entitled to have his conviction
vacated for lack of a more complete explanation only if he demonstrates
prejudice.

Mr. Dangler challenged his plea and conviction arguing that the trial court
did not fully explain the sex offender classification and reporting requirements.
However, the Ohio Supreme Court concluded that there is nothing in the
record indicating that Dangler would not have entered his plea had he
been more thoroughly informed of the details of the sex-offender-classification scheme.

Yet, the Court did admonish trial courts to be thorough in reviewing consequences
of a defendant’s decision to enter a plea, including those stemming
from classification as a sex offender: the duty to register and provide
in-person verification, the community-notification provisions, and the
residency restrictions.

(State v. Dengler, No. 2017-1703, Decided May 5, 2020)