In State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 532 N.E.2d 1295, the syllabus states: "failure to inform a defendant who pleads guilty to more than one offense that the court may order him to serve any sentences imposed consecutively, rather than concurrently, is not a violation of Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and does not render the plea involuntary." A court did not violate Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when it did not inform a defendant that a sentence for failure to comply would have to be served consecutively to a drug offense involved in the same plea proceedings. See State v. Dudenas, Cuyahoga App. Nos. 81461 and 81774, 2003 Ohio 1000, P19. In State v. Bailey, Montgomery App. No. 19736, 2004 Ohio 273, the Second Appellate District considered Bailey's argument that his guilty plea to a charge of failure to comply was involuntary because the court failed to inform him that his sentence on that charge would have to be served consecutively to other charges. The court of appeals stated that it found "no authority for the proposition that a guilty plea is not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary if a defendant is not told that R.C. 2921.331(D) requires a consecutive sentence on a failure-to-comply conviction." Id. at P16. That statement was dicta, however, because the court of appeals ultimately held that Bailey waived any argument under Crim.R. 11(C)(2) when he refused to file a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, even though the trial judge offered him the opportunity to do so.