Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1944–2026 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Boykin v. Alabamared2 sentences2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty 2021(Emphasis added.) “It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant ‘has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 18 (“A court’s duty to ensure that 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily arises from the constitutional guarantee of due process”). {¶ 19} Based on this r | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ralstongreen1 sentence2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty | 1 | 1 |
State v. Romero (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2021(Emphasis added.) “It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant ‘has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 18 (“A court’s duty to ensure that 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily arises from the constitutional guarantee of due process”). {¶ 19} Based on this r 2021(Emphasis added.) “It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant ‘has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 18 (“A court’s duty to ensure that 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily arises from the constitutional guarantee of due process”). {¶ 19} Based on this r | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Brinkman (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty 2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty | 2 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Montgomery (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty 2021(Emphasis added.) “It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant ‘has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.’ ” State v. Montgomery, 148 Ohio St.3d 347 , 2016-Ohio-5487 , 71 N.E.3d 180, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 , 89 S.Ct. 1709 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969); see also State v. Romero, 156 Ohio St.3d 468 , 2019-Ohio-1839 , 129 N.E.3d 404, ¶ 18 (“A court’s duty to ensure that 11 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily arises from the constitutional guarantee of due process”). {¶ 19} Based on this r | 2 | 2021–2026 |
State v. Ballard
green
1 sentence2026“Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) makes clear that it is the trial court that ‘shall not accept a plea of guilty’ without first informing the defendant of the constitutional rights he [or she] will waive by pleading guilty and determining that the defendant understands the waiver.” (Emphasis in original.) Brinkman, 2021-Ohio-2473, at ¶ 18 . “‘It is the trial court’s duty, therefore, to ensure that a defendant “has a full understanding of what the plea connotes and of its consequence.”’” Id., quoting State v. Montgomery, 2016-Ohio-5487, ¶ 40 , quoting Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 244 (1969). “[A] guilty | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Porterfield
green
2 sentences2014Trumbull No. 2002-T-0045, 2004-Ohio-520 , ¶ 54, overruled on other grounds, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 , 2005-Ohio-3095 , 829 N.E.2d 690 . 2014Trumbull No. 2002-T-0045, 2004-Ohio-520 , ¶ 54, overruled on other grounds, 106 Ohio St.3d 5 , 2005-Ohio-3095 , 829 N.E.2d 690 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Snyder v. New York Like Insurance
neutral
1 sentence1944“Mr. Linton: Let the record show that the defendant understands that the hearing is before Mr. Marshall ■ as special master commissioner and not as referee.” In the per curiam opinion of this court in the case of Neil House Co. v. Shafer, 121 Ohio St., 605 , 172 N. E., 374 , it was said: “The consent to refer to a master commissioner being only a consent to a limited reference, cannot be enlarged by the court into a general reference. ’ ’ In the instant case there was no consent to a reference. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Neil House Co. v. Shafer
neutral
1 sentence1944“Mr. Linton: Let the record show that the defendant understands that the hearing is before Mr. Marshall ■ as special master commissioner and not as referee.” In the per curiam opinion of this court in the case of Neil House Co. v. Shafer, 121 Ohio St., 605 , 172 N. E., 374 , it was said: “The consent to refer to a master commissioner being only a consent to a limited reference, cannot be enlarged by the court into a general reference. ’ ’ In the instant case there was no consent to a reference. | 1 | 1944–1944 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.