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.
11 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1999–2022 1 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. Colbertgreen2 sentences2017State v. Colbert, 71 Ohio App.3d 734, 737 , 595 N.E.2d 401 (11th Dist.1991). 2017State v. Colbert, 71 Ohio App.3d 734, 737 , 595 N.E.2d 401 (11th Dist.1991). | 1 | 2 |
| 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 sentences2020State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 32 . 2020State v. Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239 , 2008-Ohio-3748 , 893 N.E.2d 462, ¶ 32 . | 4 | 2013–2020 |
State v. Nero
green
2 sentences2014State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 , 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). -4- {¶13} When the trial court does not substantially comply in regard to a nonconstitutional right, such as the effect of a no contest plea, reviewing courts must determine whether the trial court partially complied or failed to comply with the dictates of the rule in question. 2014State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 , 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). -4- {¶13} When the trial court does not substantially comply in regard to a nonconstitutional right, such as the effect of a no contest plea, reviewing courts must determine whether the trial court partially complied or failed to comply with the dictates of the rule in question. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
City of Toledo v. Chiaverini
green
2 sentences2002In City of Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43 , 463 N.E.2d 56 , the Sixth District Court of Appeals determined the entering of a no contest plea has the effect of waiving a number of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. 2002In City of Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43 , 463 N.E.2d 56 , the Sixth District Court of Appeals determined the entering of a no contest plea has the effect of waiving a number of constitutional and statutory rights and privileges. | 2 | 1999–2002 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2022So, too, does ‘the plea’ refer to ‘a plea’ which the court ‘shall not accept’ until the dictates of the rule have been observed.” Id. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Saxon
green
1 sentence2022The Johnson “individual count” view is a predecessor to the view later espoused in State v. Saxon regarding sentencing for an “individual offense.” See State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2006-Ohio-1245 , 846 N.E.2d 824 , syllabus. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Miranda v. Arizona
green
2 sentences2006In Miranda itself, the United States Supreme Court observed that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].” Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 466 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . 2006In Miranda itself, the United States Supreme Court observed that “[t]he presence of counsel, in all the cases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against self-incrimination].” Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 466 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 . | 1 | 2006–2006 |
State v. Richard
green
1 sentence2002Id. {¶ 9} While the phrase "effect of the plea" is not defined under Crim.R. 11(E), a number of courts have considered what precisely a trial court must convey in order to comply with the dictates of the rule. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
State v. Stewart
green
1 sentence1999State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 ; State v. Flint (1986), 36 Ohio App.3d 4 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
State v. Flint
green
1 sentence1999State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86 ; State v. Flint (1986), 36 Ohio App.3d 4 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.