Legal Opinion

State v. Stone

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided July 16, 1975No. 74-738PublishedCited by 122 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtCorrigan, J.

Appellant proposes one proposition of law for this court’s consideration. He maintains that his guilty plea in this case was not voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made because the record discloses only that the defendant understood his right to a jury trial and does not affirmatively disclose that: (1) Either the trial judge or defendant’s counsel explained to him the facts or circumstances surrounding his plea; (2) the defendant understood he had the right to confront his accusers; (3) the defendant understood his right against self-incrimination; and (4) the defendant understood the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Boykin v. AlabamaSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  2. Johnson v. ZerbstSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  3. Brady v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  4. McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  5. Halliday v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969

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

3Cited by122 opinions

  1. State v. NeroOhio Supreme Court · 1990
  2. State v. StewartOhio Supreme Court · 1977
  3. State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2020
  4. State v. KapperOhio Supreme Court · 1983
  5. State v. RogersOhio Court of Appeals · 2013

117 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