State v. Rainey
| Citation | 3 Ohio App.3d 441,446 N.E.2d 188 |
| Parties | , 3 O.B.R. 519 The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. RAINEY, Appellant. * |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1982 |
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Ohio) |
Syllabus by the Court
1. In order for a trial court to determine that a defendant in a criminal case understands the nature of the charge to which he was entering a guilty plea, it is not always necessary that the trial court advise the defendant of the elements of the crime, or to specifically ask the defendant if he understands the charge, so long as the totality of the circumstances are such that the trial court is warranted in making a determination that the defendant understands the charge.
2. Where the charge to which a defendant pleads guilty is a lesser included offense of the crime with which he was originally charged, so that the elements of the two crimes are similar, it is not difficult to find circumstances from which the defendant could have drawn his understanding.
Michael Miller, Pros. Atty., and Joyce S. Anderson, Columbus, for appellee.
James Kura, County Public Defender, and W. Curtis Stitt, Asst. Co. Public Defender, for appellant.
This matter is before us pursuant to our having granted defendant leave to file a delayed appeal pursuant to App.R. 5(A).
On January 14, 1981, following a hearing on defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence which resulted in the motion being overruled, defendant, who had been charged with murder, entered a plea of guilty to voluntary manslaughter, in culmination of plea negotiations between his counsel and the prosecuting attorney.
Defendant claims this error occurred in the proceedings before the trial court on January 14:
"The trial court erred in accepting appellant's no contest plea without determining that he understood the nature of the charge to which he plead in violation of Criminal Rule 11(C) and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution."
Defendant's appeal is based upon his contention that the trial court violated the provisions of Crim.R. 11:
The transcript of the proceeding at which the plea was entered confirms that the trial judge did not advise the defendant of the elements of voluntary manslaughter; nor did the judge specifically ask the defendant whether he understood the charge. He did advise defendant of the maximum penalty involved and that defendant was not eligible for probation, and elicited from defendant an affirmative response when he asked defendant if his plea was voluntary.
In order for a trial court to determine that a defendant is making a plea with an understanding of the nature of the charge to which he is entering a plea, it is not always necessary that the trial court advise the defendant of the elements of the crime, or to specifically ask the defendant if he understands the charge, so long as the totality of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Fitzpatrick
...a court should examine the totality of the circumstances. Henderson at 644, 96 S.Ct. 2253, 49 L.Ed.2d 108; State v. Rainey (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 441, 442, 3 OBR 519, 446 N.E.2d 188. {¶57} However, "the courts of this state have generally held that a detailed recitation of the elements of th......
-
State v. Montgomery
...102 Ohio St.3d 321, 2004-Ohio-3167, 810 N.E.2d 927, at ¶ 56, citing Henderson at 644, 96 S.Ct. 2253 and State v. Rainey, 3 Ohio App.3d 441, 442, 446 N.E.2d 188 (10th Dist.1982). {¶ 44} In this case, the panel fully complied with Ballard and Crim.R. 11(C)(2), conducting a thorough colloquy w......
-
State Of Ohio v. Chandler
...informing him about them directly." State v. Gibson (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 146, 147, 517 N.E.2d 990, citing State v. Rainey (1982), 3 Ohio App.3d 441, 442, 446 N.E.2d 188; State v. Stewart (1977), 51 Ohio St.2d 86, 93, 364 N.E.2d 1163. As long as the court satisfies "itself that the defenda......
-
In re D.A.G.
...a defendant has drawn an understanding from sources other than the lips of the trial court.'"Id., quoting State v. Rainey, 3 Ohio App.3d 441, 442, 446 N.E.2d 188 (10th Dist. 1982) (citations omitted). Accord In re Adams, 7th Dist. Nos. 01CA237, 01CA238, and 02CA120, 2003-Ohio-4112, ¶13; In ......