State v. Watkins

Ohio Supreme Court

State v. Watkins

763 N.E.2d 1187, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1491, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 638

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 6, 2002

Docket01-2273

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 763 N.E.2d 1187 (State v. Watkins) 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. Watkins, 763 N.E.2d 1187, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1491, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 638 (Ohio 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Greene App. No. 2001CA15. 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’ Decision and Entry dated December 18, 2001, at page 3:

“Where a defendant charged with a petty offense changes his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty or no contest, does the trial court comply with Traf.R. 10(D) and Crim.R. 11(E) by informing the defendant of the information contained in Traf.R. 10(B) or Crim.R. 11(B) or must the trial court engage in a colloquy with the defendant that is substantially equivalent to that required by Crim.R. 11(C) in felony cases?”

The conflict cases are Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43, 11 OBR 76, 463 N.E.2d 56; and Cleveland v. Wanzo (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 664, 718 N.E.2d 982.

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

Greene App. No. 2001CA15. 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’ Decision and Entry dated December 18, 2001, at page 3:

“Where a defendant charged with a petty offense changes his plea of not guilty to a plea of guilty or no contest, does the trial court comply with Traf.R. 10(D) and Crim.R. 11(E) by informing the defendant of the information contained in Traf.R. 10(B) or Crim.R. 11(B) or must the trial court engage in a colloquy with the defendant that is substantially equivalent to that required by Crim.R. 11(C) in felony cases?”

The conflict cases are Toledo v. Chiaverini (1983), 11 Ohio App.3d 43, 11 OBR 76, 463 N.E.2d 56; and Cleveland v. Wanzo (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 664, 718 N.E.2d 982.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 N.E.2d 1187, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1491, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watkins-ohio-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack