State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2010 Ohio (Essay Sample)

IRAC Analysis
Name
Professor
Course
Date
State v. Underwood, 124 Ohio St. 3d 365, 2010 Ohio 1, 922 N.E.2d 923 (2010).
Issue
Underwood the appeals against a verdict that had been earlier made by the Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas. According to him, the court did not allow the police to dispatch evidence into the case. The main issue was that, after Melissa Underwood had been involved in an argument, she hit her boyfriend with a vehicle. After her plea of not being guilty, she agreed to be charged with two counts of aggravated assault. She was sentenced to two years of community control. It was after then that she applied to withdraw her plea for the guilt as had been earlier accepted by the court. She argued that the court did not communicate properly to let her know that the state needed to prove her beyond reasonable doubt. The provision requires the court to explain the rights of the defendant in an intelligible manner.
Rule
The court affirmed the ruling. It held that there was intelligible and voluntary entrance to Underwood’s plea. According to the judgment, the court does not need to prove the guilt beyond reasonable. In addition, there is no provision that compels the court to inform the defendant about convincing of the jury neither does the state need to state that.
Application
It is evident that the error claimed by the appellant is meritless. The court duly complied with Crim. R. 11 as opposed to the claims made by Underwood. It was then recommendable that order for claim for restitution should be allowed.
Conclusion
In my opinion, the judgment was an overruling. So long as Underwood had decided to withdraw the plea, it could have been declared invalid. Therefore, it did not satisfy the need to enter into the plea intelligently, voluntarily, and knowingly.
Coles v. City of Chicago, 361 F. Supp. 2d 740 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Issue
In the case, Cole was short by Timothy Thomas. Thomas was an off-duty City of Chicago police officer. Cole made three major claims. The first claim was made against City of Chicago for damages against Thomas. The second claim was made against Thomas for negligence. The third claim was against state law theories for battery and assault. In reaction, the city claims that Thomas was not acting within the scope of employment when the incident occurred. Secondly, there is no evidence to prove that Thomas was not acting under color of law and there are no undisputed facts to prove that the contrary happened, that Cole was not shot.
Rule
The court ruled that the defense by...