State v. Watkins

763 N.E.2d 1187, 94 Ohio St. 3d 1491, 2002 Ohio LEXIS 638
Ohio Supreme Court·Decided March 6, 2002·No. 01-2273·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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

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

763 N.E.2d 1187 (State v. Watkins) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Parma v. Benedict
2013 Ohio 1990 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2013)