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.
15 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2008–2025 2 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 sentences2011Thus, the defendant did not enter his plea knowingly, intelligently or voluntarily, because he was not fully informed of the maximum penalty involved in his case, before he pleaded guilty to the amended charges." {¶26} In State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶30-32, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: Stark County, Case No. 2010CA00198 8 {¶27} "If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional 2011Id. at ¶23-25. {¶19} In overruling the appellant’s Assignment of Error, we held: {¶20} “In State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 30–32, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: {¶21} “’If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy. {¶22} “’When a trial judge fails to exp | 3 | 5 |
Boykin v. Alabamagreen2 sentences2011Id. at ¶23-25. {¶19} In overruling the appellant’s Assignment of Error, we held: {¶20} “In State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 30–32, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: {¶21} “’If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy. {¶22} “’When a trial judge fails to exp 2011Id. at ¶23-25. {¶19} In overruling the appellant’s Assignment of Error, we held: {¶20} “In State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 30–32, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: {¶21} “’If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy. {¶22} “’When a trial judge fails to exp | 3 | 3 |
State v. Stewartgreen1 sentence2025The Ohio Supreme Court has held that Crim.R. 11 “fully encompasses those procedural requirements established by the United States Constitution.” State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133 (1988), citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 88 (1977). {¶16} When appellants challenge the voluntariness of their pleas under 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Crim.R. 11, “reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant’s constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance o | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2025The Ohio Supreme Court has held that Crim.R. 11 “fully encompasses those procedural requirements established by the United States Constitution.” State v. Johnson, 40 Ohio St.3d 130, 133 (1988), citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 88 (1977). {¶16} When appellants challenge the voluntariness of their pleas under 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS Crim.R. 11, “reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant’s constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance o | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2022See State v. Wright, 2021-Ohio-3818 , 180 N.E.3d 32, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). {¶ 16} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) states in relevant part: In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first addressing the defendant personally * * * and doing all of the following: (a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing. {¶ 17} If a trial co 2022See State v. Wright, 2021-Ohio-3818 , 180 N.E.3d 32, ¶ 26 (8th Dist.). {¶ 16} Crim.R. 11(C)(2) states in relevant part: In felony cases the court * * * shall not accept a plea of guilty * * * without first addressing the defendant personally * * * and doing all of the following: (a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved, and if applicable, that the defendant is not eligible for probation or for the imposition of community control sanctions at the sentencing hearing. {¶ 17} If a trial co | 1 | 1 |
State v. Milesgreen1 sentence2015Cuyahoga Nos. 98980, 99003, 2013-Ohio-1562, ¶13 (finding the trial court’s failure to address parole prior to accepting an appellant’s guilty plea to an unclassified felony did not invalidate the plea or create a void sentence). {¶ 25} However, “[i]f a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11[C], reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy.” Clark at ¶ 30. “[ | 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. Clark
green
2 sentences2019The trial court must engage a defendant in a colloquy as described in Crim.R. 11(C), and “the trial judge must convey accurate information to the defendant so that the defendant can understand the consequences of his or her decision and enter a valid plea.” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 26. “‘[R]eviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial court failed to explain the defendant’s constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy.’” State 2018State v. Ballard , 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). {¶ 8} "If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy." State v. Clark , 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , ¶ 30. | 10 | 2011–2022 |
State v. Griggs
green
2 sentences2015Cuyahoga Nos. 98980, 99003, 2013-Ohio-1562, ¶13 (finding the trial court’s failure to address parole prior to accepting an appellant’s guilty plea to an unclassified felony did not invalidate the plea or create a void sentence). {¶ 25} However, “[i]f a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11[C], reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy.” Clark at ¶ 30. “[ 2011Id. at ¶23-25. {¶19} In overruling the appellant’s Assignment of Error, we held: {¶20} “In State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , ¶ 30–32, the Supreme Court of Ohio explained the following: {¶21} “’If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy. {¶22} “’When a trial judge fails to exp | 4 | 2008–2015 |
State v. Ballard
green
2 sentences2018State v. Ballard , 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). {¶ 8} "If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy." State v. Clark , 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , ¶ 30. 2018State v. Ballard , 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 479-480, 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). {¶ 8} "If a trial court fails to literally comply with Crim.R. 11, reviewing courts must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant's constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy." State v. Clark , 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462 , ¶ 30. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Farnsworth
green
1 sentence2018Medina No. 15CA0038-M, 2016-Ohio-7919, ¶ 6 , quoting Clark at ¶ 30. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
State v. Spock
green
1 sentence2017Cuyahoga No. 99950, 2014-Ohio-606, ¶ 7 . {¶14} If a trial court fails to “literally comply with Crim.R. 11,” a reviewing court “must engage in a multitiered analysis to determine whether the trial judge failed to explain the defendant’s constitutional or nonconstitutional rights and, if there was a failure, to determine the significance of the failure and the appropriate remedy.” State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 30 . | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.