State v. Inkton
Citations
- 2026 Ohio 347
Syllabus
Guilty plea; knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made; Crim.R. 11(C); maximum penalty; consecutive sentences; trial court advisement. Under Ohio law, a trial court is not required to advise a defendant of the possibility that each individual sentence may be imposed consecutively. The trial court fully complied with Crim.R. 11(C), and appellant failed to demonstrate that his pleas were not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily made.
Judges: E.T. Gallagher
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
1 case in this archive cites this case.
Cites
8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- State v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court· 1991-01-30· cited 437×
- State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court· 2020-05-05· cited 408×
- State v. JohnsonOhio Supreme Court· 1988-12-28· cited 238×
- State v. DavnerCourt of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga County· 2017-12-07· cited 29×
- State v. PoageOhio Court of Appeals· 2022-02-17· cited 17×
- State v. CobbledickOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-10-01· cited 8×
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2025-05-01· cited 4×
- State v. MartinOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-07-11· cited 3×
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.