describing the defendant’s “license suspension” as “a component of the maximum penalty for the charges”
How later courts described this case
- describing the defendant’s “license suspension” as “a component of the maximum penalty for the charges”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Hoffman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part
{¶ 49} I concur in the majority's analysis and disposition of Appellant's second and third assignments of error. I respectfully dissent from the majority's disposition of Appellant's first assignment of error.
{¶ 50} While the "plea of guilty" form indicated a license suspension for each of the eight counts as "6 mos. up to 5 years", the trial court's Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy did not include any discussion of a license suspension. As noted in the majority opinion, one of the charges mandates a three year to lifetime license suspension.
{¶ 51} I have previously stated the failure to advise a defendant of a mandatory lifetime license suspension does not constitute substantial compliance with Crim.R 11. (See my dissenting opinion in State v. Schultz , 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 12 CA 24, 2013-Ohio-2218 , 993 N.E.2d 410 ). 1
{¶ 52} I would sustain Appellant's first assignment of error, reverse Appellant's convictions and remand the case for further proceedings. 2
I did not participate in this Court's decision in State v. Brown , 5th Dist. Licking No. 13-CA-13, 2013-Ohio-5515 , 2013 WL 6670786 . I note, in Brown , the trial court did orally advise the defendant there would be a suspension of his driver's license.
Such would render Appellant's assignments of error two and three moot.