9 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2020–2026 8 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. Miller (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2026A trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it “orally advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 22 , 151 N.E.3d 617 . 2026A trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it “orally advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 22 , 151 N.E.3d 617 . | 1 | 6 |
State v. Lowegreen1 sentence2026An appellate court’s “review of the trial court’s denial of a post-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is limited to the determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion.” State v. Morgan, 2012-Ohio-5773 , ¶ 11 (10th Dist.), citing Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 20} Generally, however, “res judicata bars a defendant from raising claims in a post-sentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea that were either raised or could have been raised in a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence.” State v. Lowe, 2015-Ohio-382, ¶ 10 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Greengreen1 sentence2024Id. at ¶ 14, citing State v. Green, 2019-Ohio-1428, ¶ 3 (1st Dist.). {¶10} To “strictly comply with the rule, the trial court must orally advise the defendant, in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-1864, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 18-19 . | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ballardgreen2 sentences2022Strict compliance means that a “trial court 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS must orally advise the defendant, in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” Miller at ¶ 1 ; see State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 480 , 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). 2022Strict compliance means that a “trial court 4 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS must orally advise the defendant, in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” Miller at ¶ 1 ; see State v. Ballard, 66 Ohio St.2d 473, 480 , 423 N.E.2d 115 (1981). | 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. Veney
green
2 sentences2023A trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it “orally advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2020-Ohio-1420 , 151 N.E.3d 617, ¶ 22 . “[A] trial court can still convey the requisite information on constitutional rights to the defendant even when the court does not provide a word- for-word recitation of the criminal rule, so long as the trial court actually explains the rights to the defendant.” State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2008-Ohio-5200 , 897 N.E. 2023A trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when it “orally advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Miller, 159 Ohio St.3d 447 , 2020-Ohio-1420 , 151 N.E.3d 617, ¶ 22 . “[A] trial court can still convey the requisite information on constitutional rights to the defendant even when the court does not provide a word- for-word recitation of the criminal rule, so long as the trial court actually explains the rights to the defendant.” State v. Veney, 120 Ohio St.3d 176 , 2008-Ohio-5200 , 897 N.E. | 2 | 2023–2026 |
State v. Smith
green
1 sentence2026Under this standard, “a trial court strictly complies with Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) when in its plea colloquy with the defendant, it advises the defendant in a manner reasonably intelligible to the defendant that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” Id. at ¶ 19. {¶ 19} Criminal Rule 32.1 governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea and states: “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 judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her ple | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Moore
neutral
1 sentence2025These facts are identical to those in State v. Moore, 2019-Ohio-2764 (9th Dist.) and State v. Phillips, 2016-Ohio-4687 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Phillips
green
1 sentence2025These facts are identical to those in State v. Moore, 2019-Ohio-2764 (9th Dist.) and State v. Phillips, 2016-Ohio-4687 (9th Dist.). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Jones
neutral
1 sentence2024Id. at ¶ 14, citing State v. Green, 2019-Ohio-1428, ¶ 3 (1st Dist.). {¶10} To “strictly comply with the rule, the trial court must orally advise the defendant, in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant, that the plea waives the rights enumerated in the rule.” State v. Jones, 2021-Ohio-1864, ¶ 17 , citing State v. Miller, 2020-Ohio-1420, ¶ 18-19 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2023“When a criminal defendant seeks to have his conviction reversed on appeal, the traditional rule is that he must establish that an error occurred in the trial-court proceedings and that he was prejudiced by that error.” State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2020-Ohio-2765 , 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 13 . 2023“When a criminal defendant seeks to have his conviction reversed on appeal, the traditional rule is that he must establish that an error occurred in the trial-court proceedings and that he was prejudiced by that error.” State v. Dangler, 162 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2020-Ohio-2765 , 164 N.E.3d 286, ¶ 13 . | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Miller
green
1 sentence2020(No. 2018-0948—Submitted December 11, 2019—Decided April 14, 2020.) APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 105363, 2018-Ohio-843 . __________________ FISCHER, J. {¶ 1} In this appeal, we are asked whether trial courts in felony cases must strictly comply with the plea colloquy required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(c) and, if so, whether strict compliance requires that the colloquy include particular words. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
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.