State v. Smith
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtCelebeezze, J.
The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals below stated that “* * * the trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to allow the * * * [defendant] to withdraw his plea of guilty.” We disagree.
The appellate court’s conclusion is premised upon its application of the principles of law announced in Cleveland v. Whipkey (1972), 29 Ohio App. 2d 79, and Boykin v. Alabama (1969), 395 U. S. 238. In Whipkey, it was held, inter alia, that knowing, intelligent and voluntary waivers of the rights to trial by jury, to confrontation of one’s accusers and against self-incrimination, mandated as necessary…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Sydney B. Kadwell v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1963
- United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- Andrew Leo Oksanen v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1966
- List v. LernerSupreme Court of the United States · 1965
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by840 opinions
- State v. XieOhio Supreme Court · 1992
- State v. PeterseimOhio Court of Appeals · 1980
- State v. StumpfOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- State v. BushOhio Supreme Court · 2002
- State v. BushOhio Supreme Court · 2002
835 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.