State v. Austin
Citations
- 2019 Ohio 1983
Syllabus
Postrelease control plea agreement guilty sentence Crim.R. 11 prejudice substantial compliance breach maximum penalty nature of the charges voluntary knowing intelligent. Defendant's guilty pleas were knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made. The trial court substantially complied with the nonconstitutional requirements of Crim.R. 11(C)(2)(a). The record does not support the defendant's position that the trial court's imposition of postrelease control breached a term of his plea agreement with the state.
Judges: E. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1971-12-20· cited 5,257×
- Blackledge v. AllisonSupreme Court· 1977-05-02· cited 3,882×
- State v. NeroOhio Supreme Court· 1990-12-19· cited 1,637×
- State v. BallardOhio Supreme Court· 1981-06-24· cited 893×
- State v. VeneyOhio Supreme Court· 2008-10-09· cited 725×
- State v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court· 2008-07-31· cited 654×
- State v. SarkozyOhio Supreme Court· 2008-02-14· cited 403×
- David Wayne Baker v. United StatesSixth Circuit· 1986-01-15· cited 338×
- City of Lakewood v. PapadelisOhio Supreme Court· 1987-08-05· cited 330×
- State v. SpockOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-02-20· cited 39×
- State v. TuttOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-12-10· cited 39×
- State v. HussingOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-10-25· cited 14×
- State v. GroveOhio Court of Appeals· 2016-04-28· cited 13×
- State v. BellOhio Court of Appeals· 2011-11-03· cited 7×
- State v. ParhamOhio Court of Appeals· 2018-04-26· cited 6×
- State v. HedenbergOhio Court of Appeals· 2015-11-12· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.