Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Moore

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

October 26, 2017

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Harold S. Moore, Defendant-Appellant. State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Harold S. Moore, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEALS from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. Nos. 16CR-1434, 16CR-1479

         On brief:

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Laura R. Swisher, for appellee.

          Yeura Venters, Public Defender, and Timothy E. Pierce, for appellant.

         Argued:

          Timothy E. Pierce.

          DECISION

          TYACK, P.J.

         {¶ 1} Harold S. Moore is appealing from his convictions following guilty pleas and the sentences ordered. He assigns four errors for our consideration:

[I.] The trial court erred by entering judgments of conviction based upon guilty pleas that were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary in violation of Rule 11 of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[II.] The trial court erred and violated R.C. 2929.18(A)(1) as well as Appellant's right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution when it failed to conduct a hearing on restitution after Appellant disputed the restitution amount.
[III.] The trial court's order that Appellant remit restitution was not supported by clear and convincing evidence and thus was contrary to law inasmuch as the case for which restitution was ordered had been dismissed. Its actions therefore violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, R.C. 2929.18, R.C. 2953.08(A)(4), and R.C. 2953.08(G)(2)(b).
[IV.] Inasmuch as the defense's purported agreement to pay the restitution amount in case no. 16CR-1479 was not voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently entered the trial court erred in imposing the same in violation of the Appellant's right to due process of law under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, Article I, Sections 1 and 16 of the Ohio Constitution, and pursuant to R.C. 2953.08(A)(4).

         {¶ 2} Under the first assignment of error, Moore's counsel argues that the trial court judge did not adequately comply with Crim.R. 11(C)(2). That rule reads:

In felony cases the court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty or a plea of no contest, and shall not accept a plea of guilty or no contest without first addressing the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.