Case Citator › State v. Clark

State v. Clark

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Criticized by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of Ohio
Citation
119 Ohio St. 3d 239
Decided
Confirmed treatments
1
Flagged citations read
34 of 34
Citing cases (total)
34
Treatment dates
2020
Criticized by some courts
At least one reviewed court has criticized this case’s reasoning. No reviewed court has overruled it. Criticized as to its tiered description of compliance with Ohio Criminal Rule 11. All 34 flagged citations have been read.
More on how this was screened

In State v. Dangler, the Supreme Court of Ohio said the partial and substantial compliance terms used in State v. Clark had muddled plea review and set out a simpler sequence of questions. The confirmed criticism is listed below. Clark's requirements for accurate plea information and its prejudice inquiry continue to be applied; State v. Tyson expressly says Dangler did not overrule Clark.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

34 later cases cite State v. Clark; 34 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on State v. Clark?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Criticized

  • The Ohio Supreme Court criticized Clark's partial and substantial compliance terms as needlessly complicating review of guilty pleas and replaced them with a simpler sequence of questions.

    State v. Dangler · Supreme Court of Ohio · filed

    Unfortunately, our caselaw has muddled that analysis by suggesting different tiers of compliance with the rule. The court has, in some instances, said that “partial” compliance is sufficient absent a showing of prejudice from the failure to “substantially” comply, see, e.g., Clark, 119 Ohio St.3d 239, 2008-Ohio-3748, 893 N.E.2d 462, at ¶ 32. Elsewhere, the court has indicated that when a trial court has “substantially” complied, the defendant must show prejudice from the failure to “strictly” or “literally” adhere to the rule, see, e.g., Nero at 107-108; see also Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d at 93, 364 N.E.2d 1163. But those formulations have served only to unduly complicate what should be a fairly straightforward inquiry.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads State v. Clark and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace