“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… Because Dangler has not established prejudice, he is not entitled to have his no contest plea vacated for a failure to comply with Crim.R. 11(C).”

Justice DeWine

Update: On May 5, 2020, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

“So what aspect at the time of the plea—not sentencing—was there substantial compliance?”

Justice Stewart, to the prosecutor

“What are the words the trial court has to say to be ok?”

Justice DeWine

“By any fair reading of Crim.R. 11(C)(2), the potential R.C. 2929.141(A) sentence was part of the ‘maximum penalty involved’ in this case.”

Justice French, lead opinion

“…The lead opinion’s analysis cannot be squared with the language of the postrelease-control statute or our decisions recognizing that a sanction for a postrelease-control violation is not punishment for

Update: On December 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

“So you would have trial judges just sit there and read from a script to the defendant, which is a universal script and then put the paper down, and that’s it?”

Chief Justice

Update: On December 21, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio handed down a merit decision in this case.  Read the analysis here.

Read the analysis of the oral argument here. 

On July 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of Ohio will hear oral argument in the case of State of Ohio v. Dustin Bishop, 2017-1715. The