Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
40 Ohio opinions name it 3 courts 2000–2026 18 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Ohio courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
State v. Fishgreen2 sentences2025State v. Grabe, 2020-Ohio-4435 (7th Dist.), ¶ 15, citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-882, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), and State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶62} The plea withdrawal hearing reflects the following. 2024While it is insufficient to show we would have reached a different result, an abuse of discretion means an error in judgment resulting in a decision that is “unreasonable based upon the record.” State v. Chapman, 2020-Ohio-5589, ¶ 5 (7th Dist.). {¶32} We have adopted a non-exclusive list of factors first announced in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist.1995), to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the | 4 | 25 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2022Using an analysis based on this framework, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s judgment denying the motion was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. {¶ 18} Barnes asserts in this court that rather than apply this court’s plea- withdrawal framework as given in Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , the Eighth District instead applied “a test that focuses too narrowly on * * * procedural protections—such as the rights explained to the defendant in the original plea hearing—and on the trial court’s own view of the reasons for the requested plea withdrawal.” Barnes argues 2022Using an analysis based on this framework, the court of appeals held that the trial court’s judgment denying the motion was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. {¶ 18} Barnes asserts in this court that rather than apply this court’s plea- withdrawal framework as given in Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 , the Eighth District instead applied “a test that focuses too narrowly on * * * procedural protections—such as the rights explained to the defendant in the original plea hearing—and on the trial court’s own view of the reasons for the requested plea withdrawal.” Barnes argues | 2 | 16 |
State v. Rosemarkgreen2 sentences2025State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306, 308 (9th Dist. 1996). {¶ 25} Factors a trial court may consider when making a decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea include: (1) prejudice to the state; (2) counsel's representation; (3) adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (6) timing; (7) the reasons for the motion; (8) the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentences; and (9) whether the defendant was perhaps not guilty or has a comple 2025State v. Rosemark, 116 Ohio App.3d 306, 308 (9th Dist. 1996). {¶ 31} Factors a trial court may consider when making a decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea include: (1) prejudice to the state; (2) counsel's representation; (3) adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (6) timing; (7) the reasons for the motion; (8) the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentences; and (9) whether the defendant was perhaps not guilty or has a comple | 2 | 5 |
State v. Grabegreen2 sentences2025State v. Grabe, 2020-Ohio-4435 (7th Dist.), ¶ 15, citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-882, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), and State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶62} The plea withdrawal hearing reflects the following. 2025State v. Grabe, 2020-Ohio-4435 ¶ 15 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-882, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), and State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶34} As detailed in the statement of the case, Appellant had multiple, “excellent” trial lawyers representing him during the proceedings. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2025State v. Grabe, 2020-Ohio-4435 (7th Dist.), ¶ 15, citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-882, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), and State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶62} The plea withdrawal hearing reflects the following. 2025State v. Grabe, 2020-Ohio-4435 ¶ 15 (7th Dist.), citing State v. Morris, 2014-Ohio-882, ¶ 21 (7th Dist.), and State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). {¶34} As detailed in the statement of the case, Appellant had multiple, “excellent” trial lawyers representing him during the proceedings. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Smithgreen2 sentences2020Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 (a pre-sentence motion case), applying State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (a post-sentence motion case). {¶15} This court has adopted a non-exclusive list of factors to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the extent of the plea hearing; (4) the extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion 2020Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 (a pre-sentence motion case), applying State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977) (a post-sentence motion case). {¶15} This court has adopted a non-exclusive list of factors to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the extent of the plea hearing; (4) the extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion | 1 | 3 |
State v. Lewisgreen1 sentence2026State v. Nicholson, 2025- Ohio-1432, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶12} “‘In considering these factors, the trial court employs a balancing test; no single factor is dispositive.’” State v. Lewis, 2021-Ohio-530, ¶ 40 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Warrix, 2015-Ohio-5390, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Warrixgreen1 sentence2026State v. Nicholson, 2025- Ohio-1432, ¶ 25 (5th Dist.). {¶12} “‘In considering these factors, the trial court employs a balancing test; no single factor is dispositive.’” State v. Lewis, 2021-Ohio-530, ¶ 40 (5th Dist.), quoting State v. Warrix, 2015-Ohio-5390, ¶ 30 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2026An abuse of discretion is more than a mere error of law; “it implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary[,] or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶11} The following factors are typically considered by a trial court in making its decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea: (1) whether the State would be prejudiced by the withdrawal; (2) the adequacy of counsel’s representation; (3) the adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) the extent of the plea-withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to th | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheppardgreen1 sentence2026State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-4882, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Prestongreen1 sentence2026State v. Preston, 2013-Ohio-4404, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jonesgreen1 sentence2025See Jones at ¶ 17 (when the transcript of earlier proceedings corroborates a defendant’s statements about this counsel’s lack of preparedness, counsel testifying at a plea-withdrawal hearing is not necessary). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Chapmangreen1 sentence2024While it is insufficient to show we would have reached a different result, an abuse of discretion means an error in judgment resulting in a decision that is “unreasonable based upon the record.” State v. Chapman, 2020-Ohio-5589, ¶ 5 (7th Dist.). {¶32} We have adopted a non-exclusive list of factors first announced in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 (1st Dist.1995), to be weighed in reviewing a decision on a presentence plea withdrawal motion: (1) the representation provided by defense counsel; (2) the defendant’s understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential sentence; (3) the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
State v. Cuthbertson
green
2 sentences2024State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 , 898–899, 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist. 2000), citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995); Accord, State v. Pitts, 5th Dist. 2024State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895 , 898–899, 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist. 2000), citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist. 1995); Accord, State v. Pitts, 5th Dist. | 16 | 2008–2024 |
State v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2026Id. {¶ 15} The issue is more complicated here, however, because defense counsel explicitly urged the trial court to apply the post-sentence standard to Slaughter’s motion. 5 During the plea-withdrawal hearing, defense counsel argued “that in order to withdraw his plea, there has to be some kind of injustice or manifest injustice due to the docket showing that there was a statement of a sentence on the record.” The manifest-injustice standard recited by defense counsel only applies to post-sentence motions to withdraw a plea. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Gilmore
green
1 sentence2023Perry No. 15CA17, 2016-Ohio-2654, ¶14 , as follows: Some factors a trial court may consider when making a decision on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are: (1) prejudice to the state; (2) counsel's representation; (3) adequacy of the Crim .R. 11 plea hearing; (4) extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (6) timing; (7) the reasons for the motion; (8) the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charges and Delaware County, Case No. 22 CAA 10 0068 8 the potential sentences; and (9) whether the defendant was perhap | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Hamilton, Ct2008-0011 (12-4-2008)
neutral
1 sentence2019Muskingum No. CT2008-0011, 2008-Ohio-6328, ¶ 32 , quoting State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992), at paragraph one of the syllabus. {¶19} Some factors a trial court may consider when considering a motion to withdraw a guilty plea are: (1) prejudice to the state; (2) counsel's representation; (3) adequacy of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) extent of the plea withdrawal hearing; (5) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (6) timing; (7) the reasons for the motion; (8) the defendant's understanding of the nature of the charges and the potential s | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Burris
green
1 sentence2017Franklin No. 13AP-238, 2013-Ohio-5108 , 2013 WL 6095885 , ¶ 18, and State v. Watkins , 10th Dist. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Watkins
green
1 sentence2016Id. | 1 | 2016–2016 |
State v. Reynolds
green
1 sentence2009Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, "a defendant cannot raise an issue in a motion for postconviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct appeal." State v. Reynolds , 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 161 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Reynolds
green
2 sentences2009Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, "a defendant cannot raise an issue in a motion for postconviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct appeal." State v. Reynolds , 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 161 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 . 2009Pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata, "a defendant cannot raise an issue in a motion for postconviction relief if he or she could have raised the issue on direct appeal." State v. Reynolds , 79 Ohio St.3d 158 , 161 , 1997-Ohio-304 , 679 N.E.2d 1131 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
State v. Jackson
green
1 sentence2005Further, Smith complains that the plea was involuntary because the plea offer was available only that day. {¶ 15} We note that "[t]he state is not constitutionally required to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey (1977), 429 U.S. 545 ; State v. Jackson (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 253 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Weatherford v. Bursey
green
1 sentence2005Further, Smith complains that the plea was involuntary because the plea offer was available only that day. {¶ 15} We note that "[t]he state is not constitutionally required to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey (1977), 429 U.S. 545 ; State v. Jackson (1977), 50 Ohio St.2d 253 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
State v. Griffin
green
1 sentence2005Id. at 555 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.