Legal Opinion

State v. Billups

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided February 28, 1979No. 77-1291PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHerbert, J.

Appellant’s sole contention is that the trial conrt erred when it accepted his guilty plea without first orally and personally advising him of each of his constitutional and other rights pursuant to Crim. R. 11(C) (2). Citing State v. Caudill (1976), 48 Ohio St. 2d 342, 358 N. E. 2d 601, appellant argues that such an error is prejudicial per se and in effect requires the automatic reversal of his conviction. We disagree.

At the outset of the guilty plea proceedings, appellant was apprised fully of the charges against him, the minimum and maximum penalties, and was informed of his right to an…

2Cases cited22 opinions

  1. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  2. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Michigan v. TuckerSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
  4. Halliday v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. State v. StewartOhio Supreme Court · 1977

17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. State v. VeneyOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. BallardOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  3. City of Garfield Heights v. BrewerOhio Court of Appeals · 1984
  4. In Re EtterOhio Court of Appeals · 1998
  5. State v. CalvilloOhio Court of Appeals · 1991

24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API