State v. Grossman
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 2363
Syllabus
Substitution of a party App.R. 29(A) Crim.R. 11(C) knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered a plea nature of the charges mandatory sentence prejudice. A review of the record demonstrated the trial court's advisements complied with Crim.R. 11(C). Even assuming arguendo the trial court did not fully comply with the Crim.R. 11(C) advisements, the defendant failed to argue prejudice and, therefore, defendant entered his guilty pleas knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.
Judges: Kilbane
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. NeroOhio Supreme Court· 1990-12-19· cited 1,637×
- State v. BallardOhio Supreme Court· 1981-06-24· cited 893×
- State v. StewartOhio Supreme Court· 1977-07-13· cited 788×
- State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-05-05· cited 408×
- State v. CarterOhio Supreme Court· 1979-11-14· cited 195×
- Hayward v. Summa Health System/Akron City HospitalOhio Supreme Court· 2014-05-08· cited 86×
- Wagner v. Roche LaboratoriesOhio Supreme Court· 1999-05-12· cited 74×
- State v. McGettrickOhio Supreme Court· 1987-06-24· cited 58×
- State v. CuppOhio Supreme Court· 2018-12-27· cited 43×
- State v. GabbardOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-10-12· cited 10×
- State v. BeardOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-10-11· cited 1×
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.