State v. Higgins

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Higgins

659 N.E.2d 788, 74 Ohio St. 3d 410

Ohio Supreme Court·Decided January 31, 1996·No. No. 95-1892·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Having examined the same portions of the record as the court of appeals, we come to the same conclusion. The trial court advised appellant of the maximum term of incarceration, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and appellant and her counsel executed the entry of waiver and plea, which stated the period of actual incarceration. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue indicating ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

Having examined the same portions of the record as the court of appeals, we come to the same conclusion. The trial court advised appellant of the maximum term of incarceration, as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(2), and appellant and her counsel executed the entry of waiver and plea, which stated the period of actual incarceration. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue indicating ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, and the judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Wright, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Pfeifer and Cook, JJ., concur.

State v. Higgins, 659 N.E.2d 788, 74 Ohio St. 3d 410 (Ohio 1996).

Pincite

659 N.E.2d 788 (State v. Higgins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related