Ohio Court of Appeals· 4/10/2017

State v. Rodriquez

Citations

2017 Ohio 1318

Syllabus

The trial court did not err in accepting the plea of no contest. The State did not violate the terms of the plea agreement by making a sentence recommendation when the agreement did not discuss sentencing. Counsel was not ineffective. Consecutive sentences were appropriate. Plea was knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered.

Judges: Willamowski

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

4 cases in this archive cite this case.

State v. Howton
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2017-06-19· cited 63×
State v. Davis
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2017-05-22· cited 49×
State v. Perez
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2018-02-20· cited 2×
State v. Brinkman
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2024-03-18· cited 2×

Cites

12 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

State v. Bonnell (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2014-07-24· cited 1,841×
State v. Calhoun
Ohio Supreme Court· 1999-09-01· cited 1,479×
State v. Lytle
Ohio Supreme Court· 1976-12-27· cited 1,190×
State v. Hester
Ohio Supreme Court· 1976-02-04· cited 344×
United States v. Moriani
Supreme Court· 1978-07-03· cited 279×
State v. Walker
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2016-06-20· cited 73×
State v. Gonzales (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2016-12-23· cited 60×
State v. Hillman
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2014-12-30· cited 20×
State v. Price
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2014-10-23· cited 18×
State v. Fields
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2017-02-23· cited 18×
State v. Dixon
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2015-12-17· cited 8×
State v. Shepherd
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2010-02-16· cited 2×

Other cases with this name

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.