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.
176 Ohio opinions name it 4 courts 1998–2026 73 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 |
|---|---|---|
State v. Nerogreen2 sentences2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶23} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶24} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein she stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. 2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 . (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶18} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶19} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein Humphrey stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. | 5 | 14 |
State v. Brandongreen2 sentences2024“Under such circumstances, we must presume a set of facts that supports the decision of the trial court on the merger issue.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing State v. Cartlidge, 2019-Ohio-1283, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary to determine if the offenses were allied offenses of similar import, we must presume the facts established at the change of plea hearing would have validated, rather than invalidated, the judgment of the trial court.”); State v. Brandon, 45 Ohio St.3d 85, 87 (1989) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary, we must presume 2023Seneca No. 13-18-33, 2019-Ohio-1283, ¶ 33 , citing State v. Brandon, 45 Ohio St.3d 85 , 543 N.E.2d 501 (1989) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary to determine if the offenses were allied offenses of similar import, we must presume the facts established at the change of plea hearing would have validated, rather than invalidated, the judgment of the trial court.”). | 3 | 3 |
State v. Hinklegreen2 sentences2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶23} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶24} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein she stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. 2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 . (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶18} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶19} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein Humphrey stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Grovesgreen2 sentences2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶23} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶24} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein she stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. 2026State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108-109 . (1990); State v. Lebron, 2020-Ohio-1507 , ¶ 9 (8th Dist.); State v. Groves, 2019-Ohio-5025, ¶ 7 (5th Dist.). {¶18} This Court has stated, “Guilty pleas must be made knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily.” State v. Hinkel, 2024-Ohio-5499, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶19} During the change of plea hearing in the case at hand, the trial judge entered into a colloquy with Humphrey wherein Humphrey stated that she understood the nature of the charges and the maximum penalties involved. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Pettorinigreen2 sentences2025Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law. {¶17} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶18} Upon our review of the record, including the transcript of the change of plea hearing conducted on August 23, 20 2024Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law. {¶17} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶18} Upon our review of the record, including the transcripts of the change of plea hearing held August 17, 2023, and | 2 | 2 |
State v. Dinkagreen2 sentences2025Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law. {¶17} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶18} Upon our review of the record, including the transcript of the change of plea hearing conducted on August 23, 20 2024Instead, we may only determine if the sentence is contrary to law. {¶17} A sentence is not clearly and convincingly contrary to law where the trial court “considers the principles and purposes of R.C. 2929.11, as well as the factors listed in R.C. 2929.12, properly imposes post release control, and sentences the defendant within the permissible statutory range.” State v. Pettorini, 2021-Ohio-1512, ¶¶ 14-16 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Dinka, 2019-Ohio-4209, ¶ 36 (12th Dist.). {¶18} Upon our review of the record, including the transcripts of the change of plea hearing held August 17, 2023, and | 2 | 2 |
State v. Montgomerygreen2 sentences2019Compare Montgomery, 2014-Ohio-1789, at ¶ 13 (concluding that “the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) at the change-of-plea hearing”). 2018Compare Montgomery, 2014-Ohio-1789, at ¶ 13 (concluding that “the trial court strictly complied with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) at the change-of-plea hearing”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2020“The failure to recite the language of the rule word-for-word will not invalidate a plea agreement, however, so long as ‘the record demonstrates that the trial court explained the constitutional right[s] in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant.’” Id., citing Veney at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 480 (1981) and State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 , 2011-Ohio-4130, ¶ 15 . {¶9} At the change-of-plea hearing, the trial court engaged in the following exchange with Phillips: [Trial Court]: If you plead guilty you’re going to give up some very important rights. 2008State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423 N.E.2d 115 . {¶ 73} We have reviewed the colloquy between the trial court and Appellant at the change of plea hearing. | 1 | 7 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2025The term “has been variously defined, but it is clear that under such standard, a post-sentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases.” Smith, supra at 264 . {¶12} Appellant failed to include a transcript of the change-of-plea hearing in the record for purposes of appeal. 2024He contends that his plea was not voluntary, but was “coerced” because of the pain he suffered during the change of plea hearing. {¶9} “[A] defendant seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty after sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 (1977). | 1 | 4 |
State v. Bishop (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 16 ; State v. Veney, 2008-Ohio-5200 , ¶ 29. {¶ 17} For nonconstitutional rights, the trial court was required to substantially comply with the rule, meaning that the rule was satisfied “so long as the totality of the circumstances indicates that ‘the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.’” State v. Clark, 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 31, quoting State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 (1990); see also State v. Bishop, 2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 19 . 2019Bishop need not show prejudice.” Bishop, 2018-Ohio-5132, ¶ 20 . {¶39} We conclude in the case at bar that the trial court failed to inform appellant at the change of plea hearing that a consecutive prison sentence under R.C. 2929.141(A) Knox County, Case No. 18CA19 10 was possible. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2023Xie, supra, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 , citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). {¶16} Prejudice to the State: The change of plea hearing in the instant case was made on the morning of trial. 2019ZMUDA, J., dissenting: {¶ 35} Because I conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by denying Ybarra’s presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea without exploring his claim of innocence at the change of plea hearing, I must respectfully dissent. 15. {¶ 36} In State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992), the Supreme Court of Ohio directed that a trial court “must conduct a hearing to determine whether there is a reasonable and legitimate basis for the withdrawal of the plea.” Id. at paragraph one of the syllabus. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Clarkgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 25. {¶ 10} Put simply, the trial court failed to give appellant any advisements that would show that it complied with Traf.R. 10(D) at the change of plea hearing or allow this court to determine whether appellant entered his plea knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 2021Complete failure “ ‘to comply with the rule does not implicate an analysis of prejudice.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2008-Ohio-509 , 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 22 . {¶21} Here, Appellant argues the trial court failed to ensure that he subjectively understood that his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt. {¶22} Upon review, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. {¶23} At the change of plea hearing, upon inquiry by the trial court, Appellant acknowledged that by pleading guilty he was making a complete admission that he had committed the acts charged in the Indict | 1 | 3 |
State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2025Id. (“[t]here 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”); State v. Hill, 2024-Ohio-2402, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.) (“Hill did not indicate at the change-of-plea hearing that he was pleading guilty based on the possibility of judicial 7 Case No. 2024-T-0088 release”); compare Malorni, 2024-Ohio-1122, at ¶ 20 (11th Dist.) (“it is evident on the face of the record that Malorni relied on these inaccurate oral advisements when entering her plea”). {¶17} Scott argues that, at t 2021Further, the State argues Mr. Gray did not show any prejudice on the face of the record. {¶10} Notably, both parties rely upon a recent Supreme Court of Ohio decision, State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2020-Ohio-2765 , in making their respective arguments on appeal. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Cartlidgegreen2 sentences2024“Under such circumstances, we must presume a set of facts that supports the decision of the trial court on the merger issue.” Id. at ¶ 29, citing State v. Cartlidge, 2019-Ohio-1283, ¶ 33 (3d Dist.) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary to determine if the offenses were allied offenses of similar import, we must presume the facts established at the change of plea hearing would have validated, rather than invalidated, the judgment of the trial court.”); State v. Brandon, 45 Ohio St.3d 85, 87 (1989) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary, we must presume 2023Seneca No. 13-18-33, 2019-Ohio-1283, ¶ 33 , citing State v. Brandon, 45 Ohio St.3d 85 , 543 N.E.2d 501 (1989) (“[I]f the presumption of a given set of facts is necessary to determine if the offenses were allied offenses of similar import, we must presume the facts established at the change of plea hearing would have validated, rather than invalidated, the judgment of the trial court.”). | 1 | 2 |
State v. Adamsgreen2 sentences2023State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 157-158 (1980). {¶9} A motion to withdraw a guilty or no-contest plea is governed by Crim.R. 32.1, which provides: 1 Although the trial court was able to review the audio recording of the change-of-plea hearing while considering Steele’s motions to withdraw his no-contest pleas, Steele failed to file a transcript of the change- of-plea hearing for our review. -4- Case No. 4-22-06, 4-22-07 A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the 2007The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the trial court could reasonably reject or disbelieve the affidavits. {¶ 23} The Supreme Court noted that the trial court judge that denied the petition in Calhoun had presided at the defendant's change of plea hearing "and was in the best position to observe the defendant and his attorney and therefore assess the credibility of the affidavits." Id. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Bradleygreen2 sentences2023Id. {¶25} The United States Supreme Court and the Ohio Supreme Court have held a reviewing court “need not determine whether counsel's performance was deficient before examining the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the alleged deficiencies.” Bradley at 143 , quoting Strickland at 697 . {¶26} Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the pendency of the case; at the change-of-plea hearing on August 3, 2021, the record establishes appellant 1 Appellant’s arguments altered from his original motion to withdraw plea, then his reply in the trial court, to the instant appeal. 2011In order to prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, Mr. Samuels must demonstrate that “[his] counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness” and “that there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” State v. Bradley, 42 Ohio St. 3d 136, 142 (1989) (quoting Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687-88, 694 (1984)). {¶9} Because only the post-release control part of Mr. Samuels’ sentence was void, his motion to withdraw his plea could only be granted to correc | 1 | 2 |
State v. Englegreen2 sentences2023Knowing, Intelligent, and Voluntary Guilty Pleas “Due process requires that a defendant’s plea be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily; otherwise, the defendant’s plea is invalid.” State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 , 2018-Ohio-5132 , 124 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 25 ; see also State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 60 N.E.2d 450 (1996) (“When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 2020“When a defendant enters a plea in a criminal case, the plea must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 1996-Ohio-179 , 660 N.E.2d 450 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Motley, Unpublished Decision (5-20-2005)green2 sentences2021C-040430 and C-040431, 2005-Ohio-2450, ¶ 10 . {¶29} The record is clear that, at the change-of-plea hearing, Wolfe unequivocally admitted to the trial court that he was “pleading guilty because [he is] guilty as charged.” (June 15, 2020 Tr. at 70). 2018See Motley, 2005-Ohio-2450, at ¶ 10 . | 1 | 2 |
| Strickland v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 2 |
| State v. Davisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nascembenigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Bryarsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Richardsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hasergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. McConnellgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State Ex Rel. Collier v. Farley., Unpublished Decision (7-26-2005)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Collinsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Royalgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Grahamgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ahreshiengreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Connergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hammondgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Moldonado, Unpublished Decision (6-11-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dunngreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Malornigreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jamesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hallgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Jonesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Hillgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Taylorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
North Carolina v. Alford
green
2 sentences2026At the change-of-plea hearing, Fort pleaded guilty pursuant 2 to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970), to an amended count of voluntary manslaughter, with an attendant firearm specification. 2021Robinson originally pled not guilty to the charges. 1 An Alford plea refers to North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 (1970), wherein the Supreme Court of the United States held, “An accused may voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly consent to the imposition of a prison sentence even though he is unwilling to admit participation in the crime, or even if his guilty plea contains a protestation of innocence, when, as here, he intelligently concludes that his interests require a guilty plea and the record strongly evidences guilt.” Alford at syllabus. -2- Case No. 8-20-16 {¶3} | 7 | 2000–2026 |
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories
green
2 sentences2008Mack , supra, at ¶ 17; Glenn , supra, at ¶ 33 ; Pearson , supra, at ¶ 11 . "`When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass on and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings, and affirm.'" Jordan , supra, at ¶ 6 , quoting Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . "[Where] a transcript of the guilty plea hearing is not available, we cannot adequately determine whether appellant fully understood the se 2003Accordingly, we find appellant has failed to satisfy his duty under App.R. 9(B). {¶ 10} "When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court's proceedings and affirm." Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories (1980), 61 Ohio St.2d 197 , 199 . {¶ 11} We find the transcript of the change of plea hearing is necessary to resolve appellant's claim his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and volun | 5 | 2003–2008 |
State v. Martinez, Unpublished Decision (12-10-2004)
green
2 sentences2018Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c). {¶12} A trial court need only substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) pertaining to non-constitutional rights such as informing the defendant of “the nature of Case No. 17 BE 0036 –4– the charges with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, the maximum penalty, and that after entering a guilty plea or a no contest plea, the court may proceed to judgment and sentence.” Martinez, supra, ¶ 12 , citing Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b). {¶13} As to his constitutional rights, at the change of plea hearing the trial court advised appellant that by changing his plea he was 2007No. 01-CA-234, 2002-Ohio-6903 , at ¶ 11, citing Boykin , supra; State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 478 , 423 N.E.2d 115 , fn. 4. {¶ 16} A trial court need only substantially comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2) pertaining to non-constitutional rights such as informing the defendant of "the nature of the charges with an understanding of the law in relation to the facts, the maximum penalty, and that after entering a guilty plea or a no contest plea, the court may proceed to judgment and sentence." Martinez , supra, at ¶ 12 , citing Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a)(b). {¶ 17} At the change of plea hearing, | 4 | 2005–2018 |
State v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2022Id. {¶21} Appellant herein was charged with and pled guilty to one count of Rape, in violation of R.C. §2907.02(A)(2), which provides: (2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.” (B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of rape, a felony of the first degree. … {¶22} R.C. §2929.13(F)(2) requires that the sentencing court impose a prison term for “[a]ny rape, regardless of whether force was involved and regardless of the age of the victim * * *.” Guernsey County, Case No. 21 CA 26 6 {¶23 2008"The test is whether the plea would have otherwise been made." State v. Nero , 56 Ohio St.3d at 108 , citing Stewart , supra, at 93 . {¶ 14} On December 14, 2006, the trial court held a change of plea hearing, where Harber appeared with his counsel. | 3 | 2008–2022 |
State v. Calhoun
green
2 sentences2026Id. {¶26} Once again, Appellant’s only argument is that his attorney did not review discovery with him and that he entered his plea “in a vacuum.” But as set out above, Appellant’s statement to the court at the change of plea hearing directly contradicts his contention on appeal. 2025Id. {¶45} First, Appellant claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to bring up the possibility of consecutive sentences at the change of plea hearing. {¶46} As discussed previously, the trial court properly informed Appellant of the minimum and maximum penalty he faced on each count before it accepted his plea. | 2 | 2025–2026 |
State v. Barker
green
2 sentences2024However, when there is simply ambiguity at the change of plea hearing regarding the explanation of a constitutional right or its waiver, rather than a complete omission, reviewing courts are permitted to look at the entirety of the record to reconcile the ambiguity. “[A]n alleged ambiguity during a Crim.R. 11 oral plea colloquy may be clarified by reference to other portions of the record, including the written plea, in determining whether the defendant was fully informed of the right in question.” State v. Barker, 2011-Ohio-4130, ¶ 25 . {¶10} As to his right not to testify, Appellant argues, 2020“The failure to recite the language of the rule word-for-word will not invalidate a plea agreement, however, so long as ‘the record demonstrates that the trial court explained the constitutional right[s] in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant.’” Id., citing Veney at ¶ 27 , quoting State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 480 (1981) and State v. Barker, 129 Ohio St.3d 472 , 2011-Ohio-4130, ¶ 15 . {¶9} At the change-of-plea hearing, the trial court engaged in the following exchange with Phillips: [Trial Court]: If you plead guilty you’re going to give up some very important rights. | 2 | 2020–2024 |
Dusky v. United States
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 27325, 2018-Ohio-987, ¶ 18 , citing State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014- Ohio-1914, ¶ 32, citing Berry at 359 and Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 . {¶13} Specifically, during the change-of-plea hearing, Purdy appropriately responded to the trial court’s colloquy. 2018Montgomery No. 27325, 2018-Ohio- 987, ¶ 18, citing State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914, ¶ 32 , citing State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 (1995) and Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 . {¶35} Indeed, at the change-of-plea hearing, Swoveland appropriately responded to the trial court’s colloquy. | 2 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Krouskoupf
neutral
2 sentences2022Muskingum No. CT2018-0020, 2019-Ohio-806 . {¶24} A majority of the Ohio Supreme Court found in Bishop: “Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires a trial court to advise a criminal defendant on post-release control for a prior felony, during his plea hearing in a new felony case, of the trial court’s authority under R.C. 2929.141 to terminate the defendant’s existing post-release control and to impose a consecutive sentence for the post-release control violations.” {¶25} Upon our review of the change of plea hearing, we find the trial court informed appellant there was a potential post-release control pris 2022Muskingum No. CT2018-0020, 2019-Ohio-806 . {¶37} A majority of the Ohio Supreme Court found in Bishop: Ashland County, Case No. 21-COA-006 11 Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) requires a trial court to advise a criminal defendant on post-release control for a prior felony, during his plea hearing in a new felony case, of the trial court’s authority under R.C. 2929.141 to terminate the defendant’s existing post-release control and to impose a consecutive sentence for the post-release control violations. {¶38} Upon our review of the change of plea hearing, we find the trial court informed appellant there was | 2 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Neyland (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022Montgomery No. 27325, 2018-Ohio-987, ¶ 18 , citing State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014- Ohio-1914, ¶ 32, citing Berry at 359 and Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 . {¶13} Specifically, during the change-of-plea hearing, Purdy appropriately responded to the trial court’s colloquy. 2018Montgomery No. 27325, 2018-Ohio- 987, ¶ 18, citing State v. Neyland, 139 Ohio St.3d 353 , 2014-Ohio-1914, ¶ 32 , citing State v. Berry, 72 Ohio St.3d 354, 359 (1995) and Dusky, 362 U.S. at 402 . {¶35} Indeed, at the change-of-plea hearing, Swoveland appropriately responded to the trial court’s colloquy. | 2 | 2018–2022 |
State v. Sarkozy
green
2 sentences2021Complete failure “ ‘to comply with the rule does not implicate an analysis of prejudice.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2008-Ohio-509 , 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 22 . {¶21} Here, Appellant argues the trial court failed to ensure that he subjectively understood that his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt. {¶22} Upon review, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. {¶23} At the change of plea hearing, upon inquiry by the trial court, Appellant acknowledged that by pleading guilty he was making a complete admission that he had committed the acts charged in the Indict 2021Complete failure “ ‘to comply with the rule does not implicate an analysis of prejudice.’ ” Id., quoting State v. Sarkozy, 117 Ohio St.3d 86 , 2008-Ohio-509 , 881 N.E.2d 1224, ¶ 22 . {¶21} Here, Appellant argues the trial court failed to ensure that he subjectively understood that his guilty plea was a complete admission of guilt. {¶22} Upon review, we find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. {¶23} At the change of plea hearing, upon inquiry by the trial court, Appellant acknowledged that by pleading guilty he was making a complete admission that he had committed the acts charged in the Indict | 2 | 2010–2021 |
Sydney B. Kadwell v. United States
green
2 sentences2017Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶24} Appellant admits in his brief that the trial court’s colloquies with him when he entered his guilty pleas were “careful and meticulous.” -6- {¶25} At the change of plea hearing in case 13 CR 193, the trial court advised appellant of the nature of charges he was pleading guilty to: “Possession of Heroin, a Felony Two; Possession of Cocaine a Felony Four; Possession of Cocaine, a Felony Five; Improper Handling of a Firearm in a Motor Vehicle, Felony Four; Having Weapons While Under Disability, a Felony Three; and a Forfeiture Specification.” (May 9, 2016Id. at paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶16} At the change of plea hearing where appellant entered his guilty plea, the trial court took careful effort to ensure that appellant understood his rights and the effect of his plea. {¶17} The court inquired of appellant if he understood what he was doing and if he was entering his plea voluntarily. | 2 | 2016–2017 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2014(Emphasis added.) [APPELLANT]: Yes. {¶ 7} Turning to the former argument, to satisfy Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b)’s requirement to inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, “a trial court must inform the defendant of the 3. appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B).” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2007- Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 25 . 2014(Emphasis added.) [APPELLANT]: Yes. {¶ 7} Turning to the former argument, to satisfy Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(b)’s requirement to inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands the effect of the plea of guilty or no contest, “a trial court must inform the defendant of the 3. appropriate language under Crim.R. 11(B).” State v. Jones, 116 Ohio St.3d 211 , 2007- Ohio-6093, 877 N.E.2d 677, ¶ 25 . | 2 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Baker green | 2 | 2010–2010 |
| Boykin v. Alabama green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Miller (Slip Opinion) green | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Thompson green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Acosta green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Whitted green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| McCarthy v. United States green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Eckles green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Moore green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. James neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Hayes neutral | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Collins green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Brooks green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Rappuhn green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| State v. Price green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Kauffman Racing Equipment, L.L.C. v. Roberts green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Carrothers v. Hunter green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Fanning green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| People v. Harris neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Campbell green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
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.