State v. Medlock
Citations
- 2024 Ohio 5208
Syllabus
Alford plea, knowingly, voluntarily, protestations of innocence. Judgment Affirmed. Based on the totality of circumstances, we find that appellant's comment that he was not guilty when asked whether he was satisfied with his attorney, but then immediately reversed his position and acknowledged his guilt throughout the rest of the proceedings, including the sentencing, is not sufficient to trigger a trial court's heightened duty under Alford. Because appellant was not protesting his innocence to the level required under Alford and State v. Padgett, 67 Ohio App.3d 332, 337-338 (2d Dist. 1990), we find that his plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.
Judges: Boyle
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCites
10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- North Carolina v. AlfordSupreme Court· 1970-11-23· cited 9,465×
- State v. EngleOhio Supreme Court· 1996-02-14· cited 784×
- State v. KelleyOhio Supreme Court· 1991-01-30· cited 437×
- State v. PiacellaOhio Supreme Court· 1971-07-07· cited 128×
- State v. NevelsOhio Court of Appeals· 2020-03-12· cited 5×
- State v. TynerOhio Court of Appeals· 2012-06-21· cited 4×
- State v. WilkersonOhio Court of Appeals· 2014-09-11· cited 4×
- State v. NelsonOhio Court of Appeals· 2019-08-22· cited 3×
- State v. MayOhio Court of Appeals· 2021-02-01· cited 3×
- State v. SmithOhio Court of Appeals· 2024-05-23· cited 2×
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.