State v. Green

62 Citing cases

  1. Kelley v. Wilson

    2004 Ohio 4883 (Ohio 2004)   Cited 18 times
    In Kelley, like in Green, the defendant argued that the trial court did not comply with R.C. 2945.06 because it heard no testimony, failed to determine the appropriateness of the charges, and did not journalize any finding of guilt.

    {¶ 3} On February 11, 2004, Kelley filed a petition in the Court of Appeals for Richland County for a writ of habeas corpus to compel his prison warden, Julius Wilson, to release him from confinement. Kelley claimed entitlement to the writ based on State v. Parker, 95 Ohio St.3d 524, 2002-Ohio-2833, 769 N.E.2d 846, and State v. Green (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 689 N.E.2d 556. Kelley claimed that he never waived his right to a jury trial. Kelley further claimed that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to sentence him because the court heard no testimony, failed to determine the appropriateness of the charges, and did not journalize any finding of guilt.

  2. State v. Turner

    2005 Ohio 1938 (Ohio 2005)   Cited 56 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In State v. Turner, 105 Ohio St.3d 331, 2005-Ohio-1938, 826 N.E.2d 266, for example, we considered the requirement that the three-judge panel “examine the witnesses” to determine the accused's guilt.

    The defense declined to stipulate to assertions that Turner had psychologically abused Jennifer, that she had "sought refuge at the homes of friends and neighbors" when abused, and that her move to Ohio had been motivated by her desire to escape Turner's abuse. {¶ 37} In his second proposition of law, Turner contends that the panel could not properly find him guilty based on State's Exhibit 8 but rather should have required live testimony pursuant to R.C. 2945.06 and Crim.R. 11, as construed in State v. Green (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 689 N.E.2d 556. {¶ 38} In Green, the defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated murder and two capital specifications.

  3. State v. Bolin

    128 Ohio App. 3d 58 (Ohio Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 37 times
    In State v. Bolin (1998), 128 Ohio App.3d 58, two separate doctors evaluated Bolin and found him incompetent to stand trial, but competent to enter a plea.

    In support of his argument, Bolin cites R.C. 2945.06 and Crim.R. 11(C)(3); R.C. 2945.06 provides that, when a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder, a three-judge panel shall examine the witnesses, determine whether the accused is guilty of aggravated murder or any other offense, and pronounce sentence accordingly. This issue was recently resolved by the Ohio Supreme Court in State v. Green (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 689 N.E.2d 556. In Green, the court held that "when a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder in a capital case, a three-judge panel is required to examine witnesses and to hear any other evidence properly presented by the prosecution in order to make a Crim.R. 11 determination as to the guilt of the defendant."

  4. Carpenter v. Mohr

    163 F.3d 938 (6th Cir. 1998)   Cited 53 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that state court's denial of petitioner's ineffective assistance claim on procedural grounds did not preclude assertion of claim as cause for procedural default of sufficiency of evidence claim

    In addition, the Ohio Supreme Court has recently affirmed that a guilty plea conviction supported only by the prosecution's recitation of the facts "does not satisfy the evidence requirements of Crim. R. 11 and R.C. 2945.06." State v. Green, 689 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ohio 1998). In Green, a unanimous court held that during a culpability hearing on a guilty plea, the three-judge panel must examine witnesses, and in that case found that because Green's conviction was not supported by any evidence other than the prosecution's factual recitation, it must be reversed and remanded for a new trial.

  5. State v. Perkins

    No. 76321 (Ohio Ct. App. Jun. 22, 2000)   Cited 2 times

    Defendant-appellant HenryPerkins appeals from his convictions after entering guilty pleas to the following offenses: aggravated murder with prior calculation and design, with mass murder and firearm specifications; attempted aggravated murder with prior calculation and design, with a firearm specification; and aggravated robbery, with a firearm specification. Appellant challenges his convictions on the grounds that the three-judge panel failed at his plea hearing to comply with the requirements of either Crim.R. 11(C) or the supreme court's directive in State v. Green (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 100. Since this court determines appellant's challenge is baseless, his convictions are affirmed.

  6. State v. Montgomery

    2016 Ohio 5487 (Ohio 2016)   Cited 253 times

    {¶ 66} The state also contends that if this court interprets Crim.R. 11(C)(3)"to require an examination of witnesses as to a capital specification, it would be unconstitutional" under Article IV, Section 5(B) of the Ohio Constitution. Finally, the state contends that Ketterer should be overruled to the extent that it extended to capital specifications the syllabus law of State v. Green, 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 104, 689 N.E.2d 556 (1998), which held that "[w]hen a defendant pleads guilty to aggravated murder in a capital case, a three-judge panel is required to examine witnesses and to hear any other evidence properly presented by the prosecution in order to make a Crim.R. 11 determination as to the guilt of the defendant." We reject all of the state's arguments in this vein and decline to overrule Ketterer.

  7. State v. Hunt

    2019 Ohio 1982 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019)

    SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.: {¶ 1} Pursuant to App.R. 26, Loc. App.R. 26, and McFadden v. Cleveland State Univ. , 120 Ohio St.3d 54, 2008-Ohio-4914, 896 N.E.2d 672, this court determined that a conflict exists between the original panel majority decision in State v. Hunt , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105769, 2018-Ohio-4849, 2018 WL 6433103, and State v. Kelley , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 87324, 2006-Ohio-5432, 2006 WL 2977513, on the question of whether the Ohio Supreme Court's decision in State v. Green , 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 105, 689 N.E.2d 556 (1998), can be applied retroactively. The panel decision in this case found State v. Burrage , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 63824, 1993 WL 398534 (Oct. 7, 1993), to be controlling.

  8. State v. Burt

    No. 78612 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 4, 2001)   Cited 2 times

    From her judgment of conviction, appellant assigns the following error in her delayed appeal: I. THE APPELLANT'S CONVICTION MUST BE REVERSED BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED R.C. 2945.06 AND THE DICTATES OF STATE V. GREEN (1998), 81 OHIO ST.3d 100, 102-103, AND FAILED TO DEFINE PRIOR CALCULATION AND DESIGN IN VIOLATION OF OHIO LAW AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. In her sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred by accepting her guilty plea without convening a three-judge panel.

  9. Frazier v. Moore

    252 F. App'x 1 (6th Cir. 2007)   Cited 39 times
    Holding that a petitioner "in custody pursuant to a judgment of the [state] courts, even if that judgment may not be valid under state law," would still be "subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)'s one year statute of limitations in filing his federal habeas petition"

    (emphasis added). See also State v. Green, 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 689 N.E.2d 556, 559 (Ohio 1998); Ohio Criminal Rule 11. Under this law, an Ohio trial court must determine whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt when accepting his guilty plea.

  10. State v. Drain

    2022 Ohio 3697 (Ohio 2022)

    After taking this plea, the panel held an evidentiary hearing as required by R.C. 2945.06 and a plea hearing as required by Crim.R. 11(C)(3). See also State v. Green, 81 Ohio St.3d 100, 101, 689 N.E.2d 556 (1998). In advance of the hearing, the parties stipulated to the admissibility of various items of evidence and agreed that "the rules of evidence will not bar the admission of testimony and/or documentary evidence." At trial, Trooper Stanfield was the lone prosecution witness, recounting what he had learned in his investigation.