# State v. Hendershot

> Ohio Court of Appeals · October 5, 2017 · 98 N.E.3d 1139

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878751

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Heath HENDERSHOT, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** October 5, 2017
- **Citations:** 98 N.E.3d 1139; 2017 Ohio 8112
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Hoffman
- **Judges:** Gwin, Hon, Hoffman, Wise
- **Cited by:** 10 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878751

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- describing the defendant’s “license suspension” as “a component of the maximum penalty for the charges”

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9878751. Public record. Not legal advice.