State v. Anderson

Decided December 13, 1995

Ohio Court of Appeals · decided 1995-12-13

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“"(2) In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest without first addressing the defendant personally and * * *: "(a) Determining that the defendant is making the plea voluntarily, with understanding of the nature of the charges and of the maximum penalty involved[.] * * "(c) Informing the defendant and determining that the defendant understands that by the plea the defendant is waiving the rights to jury trial, to confront witnesses against him or her, to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in the defendant's favor, *Page 4 and to require the state to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial at which the defendant cannot be compelled to testify against himself or herself"”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including State v. Bublitz, 23547 (9-26-2007), State v. Stalnaker, Unpublished Decision (10-29-2003)

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1995-12-13

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably City of Cleveland v. Wanzo (1998), 119 Ohio App. 3d 807 - State v. Shields (1997)

39 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Dickinson, Judge,

¶1 dissenting.

¶2 The trial court told defendant that he was “giving up [his] right to call witnesses on [his] behalf.” The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, however, provides: “[I]n all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right … to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” Believing that there is a significant difference between a right to “call” witnesses and a right to compel their attendance, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.