126 Ohio App. 3d 768 - State v. Hartup’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
6
cited by 6 later decisions
1
states following
September 2020
most recently cited
6 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Weaver v. Graham · Calder et Wife, v. Bull et Wife. · Lynce v. Mathis · Kneisley v. Lattimer-Stevens Co. · 64 Ohio App. 2d 141 - State v. Thomas
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There is nothing in the record to suggest that defendant's decision to plead guilty gave any consideration whatsoever to the possibility that he might have the record of his conviction sealed at a later date. See State v. Davenport (1996), 116 Ohio App.3d 6 , 11 , 686 N.E.2d 531 , 534-535 ; State v. DeNardis (Dec. 29, 1993), Medina App. No. 2245, unreported, at 3, 1993 WL 548761 . The court's Crim.R. 11(C) duty to advise an accused of the effect of a guilty plea simply does not incorporate any aspect of expungement, and, absent solid proof in the record, we will not infer defendant's intent. Notably, the right to expungement under R.C. 2953.32 is discretionary, even if the applicant meets the statutory prerequisites. See State v. Heaton (1995), 108 Ohio App.3d 38 , 40 , 669 N.E.2d 885 , 886-887 ; State v. Mastin (1992), 83 Ohio App.3d 814 , 615 N.E.2d 1084 . Because expungement is ultimately discretionary with the court, the court has no duty to advise a person to consider this possibility before entering a plea. We therefore find Crim.R. 11(C) no bar to the application of amended R.C. 2953.36 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Whatever the action of the General Assembly in amending R.C. 2953.36 , the fact remains that at the time the defendant entered his guilty plea, he did have the possibility of requesting that the record of that conviction be sealed. So regardless what amendments may have been enacted at a later date, the defendant was not misinformed of the law at the time he entered his plea and cannot now argue that his plea was unknowing.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.