116 Ohio App. 3d 530 - State v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The purpose of the procedure required by Civ. R. 11(C) is to ensure that the defendant subjectively understands each of the rights concerned and that he waives it by his plea of guilty * * * . That proposition must be demonstrated by the record. The preferred method is to use the language contained in the rule, stopping after each right and asking whether the defendant understands that right and knows that his plea waives it. Id. When that is not done, the record must, in some way, affirmatively demonstrate the propositions made necessary by the rule.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006) · State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006)

2. “'Failure to use the exact language contained in Crim.R.11(C), in informing a criminal defendant of his constitutional right to a trial and the constitutional rights related to such trial, including the right to trial by jury, is not grounds for vacating a plea as long as the record shows that the trial court explained these rights in a manner reasonably intelligible to that defendant.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006) · State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006)

3. “State v. Thomas , 116 Ohio App.3d 530 , 533, 688 N.E.2d 602 , quoting State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , 423, N.E.2d 115, paragraph two of the syllabus.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006) · State v. Henderson, Unpublished Decision (12-1-2006)