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.
10 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2022 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. Ecklesgreen2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 84698, 2005-Ohio-1175, ¶ 12 (finding no authority requiring a court to inform a defendant at a plea hearing that his failure to testify could not be used against him); see also State v. Eckles, 173 Ohio App.3d 606 , 2007-Ohio-6220 , 879 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 39 (7th Dist.) (Crim.R. 11 “contains no requirement that one must be advised that the decision not to testify cannot be used against him or commented on”). 2020Cuyahoga No. 84698, 2005-Ohio-1175, ¶ 12 (finding no authority requiring a court to inform a defendant at a plea hearing that his failure to testify could not be used against him); see also State v. Eckles, 173 Ohio App.3d 606 , 2007-Ohio-6220 , 879 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 39 (7th Dist.) (Crim.R. 11 “contains no requirement that one must be advised that the decision not to testify cannot be used against him or commented on”). | 2 | 2 |
State v. Wangul, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2005)green2 sentences2020Cuyahoga No. 84698, 2005-Ohio-1175, ¶ 12 (finding no authority requiring a court to inform a defendant at a plea hearing that his failure to testify could not be used against him); see also State v. Eckles, 173 Ohio App.3d 606 , 2007-Ohio-6220 , 879 N.E.2d 829, ¶ 39 (7th Dist.) (Crim.R. 11 “contains no requirement that one must be advised that the decision not to testify cannot be used against him or commented on”). 2016Cuyahoga No. 84698, 2005-Ohio-1175, ¶ 12 , this court found “no authority requiring” a court to inform a defendant at a plea hearing that his failure to testify could be used against him. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Herbertgreen1 sentence2022Jefferson No. 19 JE 0003, 2019-Ohio-5092, ¶ 10 ("Crim.R. 11 details the advisements that must be given to a defendant at a plea hearing, whereas Crim.R. 32 provides the advisements that must be made to a defendant at a sentencing hearing"). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Johnsongreen1 sentence2004See State v. Johnson (1988), 40 Ohio St.3d 130 . | 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. Roberts
green
1 sentence2021Specifically, Crim.R. 11(C)(2) sets forth the colloquy a trial court must engage in with the defendant at a plea hearing: In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest 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 | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Rogers
green
1 sentence2019Pursuant to Crim.R. 52(B), "[p]lain errors or defects affecting substantial rights may be noticed although they were not brought to the attention of the court." Even where a defendant meets the requirements for demonstrating plain error, "an appellate court is not required to correct it," because courts are to "notice plain error with the utmost caution, under exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice." (Emphasis omitted.) (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rogers, 143 Ohio St.3d 385 , 2015-Ohio-2459 , ¶ 23. 2 We note the Supreme Court is current | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Watkins
green
2 sentences2017State v. Watkins , 99 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2003-Ohio-2419 , 788 N.E.2d 635 , ¶ 27-28. {¶ 11} Ohio Crim.R. 11(E) sets forth the requisite notice to be given to a defendant at a plea hearing on a petty offense. 2017State v. Watkins , 99 Ohio St.3d 12 , 2003-Ohio-2419 , 788 N.E.2d 635 , ¶ 27-28. {¶ 11} Ohio Crim.R. 11(E) sets forth the requisite notice to be given to a defendant at a plea hearing on a petty offense. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
In re C.S.
green
1 sentence2013Id. {¶10} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding “the maximum penalty involved,” Crim.R. 11(C)(2), no such requirement exists in Juv.R. 29. | 1 | 2013–2013 |
In Re McKenzie
green
2 sentences2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. 2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Flynn
green
2 sentences2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. 2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
In Re Christopher R.
green
2 sentences2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. 2008In re Christopher R. (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 245 , 247 , 655 N.E.2d 280 , 281-282 ; In re Flynn (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 778 , 781-782 , 656 N.E.2d 737 , 738-740 ; In re McKenzie (1995), 102 Ohio App.3d 275 , 277 , 656 N.E.2d 1377 , 1378-1379 ; {¶ 54} While a trial court is required to personally address a defendant at a plea hearing regarding "the maximum penalty involved," Crim. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Fuller, Unpublished Decision (3-9-2007)
neutral
1 sentence2007It concluded that although the Supreme Court did not elaborate on its decision to reverse, the decision could "only be read to renounce the rule, applied by the Eighth District in its decision, that a trial *Page 21 court violates its duty under Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a) when it misinforms a defendant that a mandatory period of postrelease control is discretionary." Id. at _9. {¶ 54} In light of the Supreme Court's reversal of Holloway I, this writer agrees the high Court has made it clear that if a trial court misinforms a defendant at a plea hearing that he or she may receive postrelease control, | 1 | 2007–2007 |