State v. Oetken

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that where “[t]here is nothing in the record to indicate [the defendant] failed to understand the nature of an [enhanced sentence], or the significance of his admission,” the court discharged its duty to inform the defendant as to the ramifications
• finding that “similar methods of operation” for multiple burglaries constituted sufficient evidence of a common scheme
• finding that the evidence “overwhelmingly indicated” the defendant “intended to commit theft by breaking into private residences, and stealing firearms, televisions, and other personal property”
• indicating trial courts have a “duty to inform the defendant as to the ramifications of an habitual offender adjudication”
• finding the trial court “discharged its duty to inform the defendant as to the ramifications of an habitual offender adjudication”
• finding no error when “[t]he trial court discharged its duty to inform the defendant as to the ramifications of an habitual offender adjudication”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).