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 2000–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
Godinez v. Morangreen2 sentences2026That is, he contends that the seizure impaired his cognitive clarity to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity required to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or to comprehend the nature of the charges and the potential penalties that he faced. -24- {¶44} “In addition to the requirement that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a trial court must satisfy itself that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is competent.” State v. Swoveland, 2018-Ohio-2875, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). “‘The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental cap 2026That is, he contends that the seizure impaired his cognitive clarity to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity required to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or to comprehend the nature of the charges and the potential penalties that he faced. -24- {¶44} “In addition to the requirement that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a trial court must satisfy itself that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is competent.” State v. Swoveland, 2018-Ohio-2875, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). “‘The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental cap | 2 | 3 |
State v. Swovelandgreen1 sentence2026That is, he contends that the seizure impaired his cognitive clarity to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity required to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or to comprehend the nature of the charges and the potential penalties that he faced. -24- {¶44} “In addition to the requirement that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a trial court must satisfy itself that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is competent.” State v. Swoveland, 2018-Ohio-2875, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). “‘The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental cap | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prophetgreen1 sentence2026That is, he contends that the seizure impaired his cognitive clarity to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity required to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or to comprehend the nature of the charges and the potential penalties that he faced. -24- {¶44} “In addition to the requirement that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a trial court must satisfy itself that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is competent.” State v. Swoveland, 2018-Ohio-2875, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). “‘The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental cap | 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. Lawson (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2026That is, he contends that the seizure impaired his cognitive clarity to the extent that he lacked the mental capacity required to knowingly and intelligently waive his constitutional rights or to comprehend the nature of the charges and the potential penalties that he faced. -24- {¶44} “In addition to the requirement that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, a trial court must satisfy itself that a defendant who seeks to plead guilty is competent.” State v. Swoveland, 2018-Ohio-2875, ¶ 25 (3d Dist.). “‘The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental cap 2022To illustrate, -16- [t]he United States Supreme Court has explained the distinction between a competency determination and an inquiry into the knowing and voluntary character of a rights waiver as follows: “The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is whether he has the ability to understand the proceedings. * * * The purpose of the ‘knowing and voluntary’ inquiry, by contrast, is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.” (Emphasis sic.) | 2 | 2022–2026 |
Parke v. Raley
green
2 sentences2022To illustrate, -16- [t]he United States Supreme Court has explained the distinction between a competency determination and an inquiry into the knowing and voluntary character of a rights waiver as follows: “The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is whether he has the ability to understand the proceedings. * * * The purpose of the ‘knowing and voluntary’ inquiry, by contrast, is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.” (Emphasis sic.) 2022To illustrate, -16- [t]he United States Supreme Court has explained the distinction between a competency determination and an inquiry into the knowing and voluntary character of a rights waiver as follows: “The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is whether he has the ability to understand the proceedings. * * * The purpose of the ‘knowing and voluntary’ inquiry, by contrast, is to determine whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.” (Emphasis sic.) | 2 | 2021–2022 |
Atkins v. Virginia
green
2 sentences2010See Godinez, infra, 509 U.S. 401 fn.12 (“The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is Ross App. No. 09CA3136 24 536 U.S. 304, 318 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (stating that “’[m]entally retarded persons frequently * * * are competent to stand trial’”); State v. Hall (Feb. 25, 2000) Jackson App. No. 99CA847, citing State v. Barnhart (Sept. 24, 1997), Washington App. No. 96CA32. 2010See Godinez, infra, 509 U.S. 401 fn.12 (“The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity; the question is Ross App. No. 09CA3136 24 536 U.S. 304, 318 , 122 S.Ct. 2242 , 153 L.Ed.2d 335 (stating that “’[m]entally retarded persons frequently * * * are competent to stand trial’”); State v. Hall (Feb. 25, 2000) Jackson App. No. 99CA847, citing State v. Barnhart (Sept. 24, 1997), Washington App. No. 96CA32. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
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.