State v. Veney
This text of 868 N.E.2d 678 (State v. Veney) 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.
Opinion
Franklin App. No. 06AP-523, 2007-Ohio-1295. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed March 22, 2007:
“Whether a trial court must strictly comply with the requirement in Crim.R. 11(C) that it inform the defendant that by entering a plea, the defendant waives the right to have the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.”
The conflict cases are State v. Scott (1996), 113 Ohio App.3d 401, State v. Cogar (Oct. 20, 1993), Summit App. No. CA-16234, and State v. Shinkle (Aug. 18, 1998), Scioto App. No. 98CA2560.
Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2007-0657, State v. Veney, Franklin App. No. 06AP-523, 2007-Ohio-1295.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
868 N.E.2d 678, 114 Ohio St. 3d 1423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-veney-ohio-2007.