Ohio Supreme Court
State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)
May 5, 2020162 Ohio St. 3d 1
Summary
The court held that a trial court does not completely fail to comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when it advises a defendant that sex-offender registration applies but does not explain every related obligation and restriction. Because the maximum-penalty advisement is nonconstitutional and the defendant failed to show that he would not have entered the plea with a more detailed explanation, he was not entitled to withdraw his plea. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded for consideration of the previously moot appointed-counsel-fee issue.