STATE v. JONES, 111 Ohio St.3d 1489 (2006)

2006-Ohio-6171

State v. Jones.

2006-1851.Supreme Court of Ohio.
November 29, 2006.

Mahoning App. No. 05-MA-69, 2006-Ohio-3636.

MOTION AND PROCEDURAL RULINGS
On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists. The parties are to brief the issue stated at page 3 of the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed September 20, 2006:

“Whether a trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(E) by simply notifying a defendant of the effect of his/her plea as set out in Crim.R. 11(B) or whether the trial court complies with Crim.R. 11(E) by notifying a defendant of the maximum penalties that could result from a plea and that the defendant

Page 1490

waives his/her right to a jury trial by entering a plea but does not notify a defendant of the effect of his/her plea.”

LANZINGER, J., dissents.

The conflict cases are State v. Horton-Alomar, Franklin App. No. 04AP-744, 2005-Ohio-1537, and State v. Raby, Greene App. No. 2005-CA-88, 2005-Ohio-3741.

Sua sponte, cause consolidated with 2006-1606, State v. Jones, Mahoning App. No. 05-MA-69, 2006-3636.