Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Foster

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided October 3, 2018No. C-170245Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partZayas, J.

{¶ 29} I concur with the majority's resolution of Foster's second assignment of error. However, under the totality of the circumstances, I conclude that Foster could not have understood the maximum penalty he was facing because he was erroneously informed that the prison sentence was not mandatory and erroneously informed that he was eligible for community control. Although the trial court informed him that it would not impose community control because of the nature of the offense, the court did not advise him that he was facing a mandatory sentence, rendering him ineligible for community…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. NeroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. ClarkOhio Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State v. TuttOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  4. State v. GivensOhio Court of Appeals · 2015
  5. State v. HendrixOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

4 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