State v. Dangler

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Dangler

92 N.E.3d 876, 2018 Ohio 723, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1404

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 28, 2018

Docket2017–1703

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 92 N.E.3d 876 (State v. Dangler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Dangler, 92 N.E.3d 876, 2018 Ohio 723, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1404 (Ohio 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

On review of an order a certifying conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals' decision filed November 7, 2017. "During a plea hearing, does the failure of the sentencing court to inform a defendant of all of the penalties associated with a sex offender classification imposed by R.C. Chapter 2950 constitute a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 and render the plea void without the need to show prejudice resulted?"

The conflict cases are State v. Creed, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97317, 2012-Ohio-2627, and State v. Young, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2013-CA-22, 2014-Ohio-2213.

It is ordered by the court that the clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the court of appeals for Williams County. O'Connor, C.J., and DeWine, J., would hold the cause for the decision in 2017-0891, State v. Kouts.

French and Fischer, JJ., dissent.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

On review of an order a certifying conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are ordered to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals' decision filed November 7, 2017. "During a plea hearing, does the failure of the sentencing court to inform a defendant of all of the penalties associated with a sex offender classification imposed by R.C. Chapter 2950 constitute a complete failure to comply with Crim.R. 11 and render the plea void without the need to show prejudice resulted?"

The conflict cases are State v. Creed, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97317, 2012-Ohio-2627, and State v. Young, 2d Dist. Greene No. 2013-CA-22, 2014-Ohio-2213.

It is ordered by the court that the clerk shall issue an order for the transmittal of the record from the court of appeals for Williams County. O'Connor, C.J., and DeWine, J., would hold the cause for the decision in 2017-0891, State v. Kouts.

French and Fischer, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 N.E.3d 876, 2018 Ohio 723, 152 Ohio St. 3d 1404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-dangler-ohio-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack