nonexhaustive list factors in Ohio

2019Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 . {¶34} R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors that the court must consider in relation to the seriousness of the underlying crime and likelihood of recidivism, including “(1) the physical, psychological, and economic harm suffered by the victim, (2) the defendant’s prior criminal record, (3) whether the defendant shows any remorse, and (4) any other relevant factors.” State v. Kronenberg, 8th Dist.

2017Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 18 . {¶48} Under R.C. 2929.11(A), the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and “to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes * * *.” Under R.C. 2929.12(A), trial courts must consider a nonexhaustive list of factors, including the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, the likelihood of recidivism, and “any other factors that are releva

2017Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 18 . {¶48} Under R.C. 2929.11(A), the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and “to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes * * *.” Under R.C. 2929.12(A), trial courts must consider a nonexhaustive list of factors, including the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, the likelihood of recidivism, and “any other factors that are releva

2017Cuyahoga No. 98622, 2013-Ohio-2525, ¶ 10 , citing State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124, ¶ 18 . {¶48} Under R.C. 2929.11(A), the two overriding purposes of felony sentencing are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others,” and “to punish the offender using the minimum sanctions that the court determines accomplish those purposes * * *.” Under R.C. 2929.12(A), trial courts must consider a nonexhaustive list of factors, including the seriousness of the defendant’s conduct, the likelihood of recidivism, and “any other factors that are releva

2013Id., citing State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2006-Ohio-855 , 846 N.E.2d 1 . {¶9} R.C. 2929.11(A) provides that when a trial court sentences an offender for a felony conviction it must be guided by the “overriding purposes of felony sentencing.” Those purposes are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(B) states that a felony sentence “must be reasonably calculated to achieve the purposes set forth under R.C. 2929.11(A), commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victim, and

2013Id., citing State v. Mathis, 109 Ohio St.3d 54 , 2006-Ohio-855 , 846 N.E.2d 1 . {¶9} R.C. 2929.11(A) provides that when a trial court sentences an offender for a felony conviction it must be guided by the “overriding purposes of felony sentencing.” Those purposes are “to protect the public from future crime by the offender and others and to punish the offender.” R.C. 2929.11(B) states that a felony sentence “must be reasonably calculated to achieve the purposes set forth under R.C. 2929.11(A), commensurate with and not demeaning to the seriousness of the crime and its impact on the victim, and

2011To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” {¶ 29} R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses. {¶ 30} The Kalish court also noted that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes like R.C. 2929.14. 3 Instead, they “serv

2011To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” {¶ 29} R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses. {¶ 30} The Kalish court also noted that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes like R.C. 2929.14. 3 Instead, they “serv

2011To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” {¶ 29} R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses. {¶ 30} The Kalish court also noted that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes like R.C. 2929.14. 3 Instead, they “serv

2011To achieve those purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the need for incapacitating the offender, deterring the offender and others from future crime, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or both.” {¶ 29} R.C. 2929.12 provides a nonexhaustive list of factors a trial court must consider when determining the seriousness of the offense and the likelihood that the offender will commit future offenses. {¶ 30} The Kalish court also noted that R.C. 2929.11 and 2929.12 are not fact-finding statutes like R.C. 2929.14. 3 Instead, they “serv

2026Id. {¶16} “The statutes do not mandate judicial fact-finding, and when a sentencing court states that it has considered these factors, it fulfills its duty.” State v. DeLuca, 2021- Ohio-1007, ¶ 18 (11th Dist.).

2026Id. {¶18} This court has provided a nonexhaustive list of factors courts should consider to determine if the totality of the circumstances shows a defendant was in 6 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS custody: (1) the location of the questioning, (2) if the defendant was a suspect when the interview began, (3) whether the defendant was free to leave, (4) whether law enforcement placed the defendant in handcuffs or said that the defendant was under arrest, (5) if law enforcement threatened the defendant during the interview, (6) if law enforcement physically intimidated the defendant, (7) whe

2025Id. at 179 ; see also R.C. 3105.21(A).

2024Id. at 192 .

2023Hamilton No. C-200058, 2020-Ohio-5609, ¶ 8 . 5 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS {¶16} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) sets forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that a court may consider in determining the best interest of a child; but, pursuant to R.C. 3109.04, the court shall consider “all relevant factors.” Here, the trial court considered the following factors found in R.C. 3109.04(F): (a) The wishes of the parents regarding the child’s care; (b) The child’s wishes and concerns as to the allocation of parental rights and responsibilities concerning the child; (d) The child’s adjustment to the child

2022Id. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).

2022The court of appeals explained that a trial court does not abuse its discretion when it denies a defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea when: (1) the defendant is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) the defendant was afforded a full hearing pursuant to Crim.R. 11 before he or she entered his plea, (3) after the motion to withdraw is filed, the defendant is given a complete and impartial hearing on the motion, and (4) the record reveals that the court gave full and fair consideration to the plea withdrawal request. 2021-Ohio-842, ¶ 22 . {¶ 17} In addition to the Peterseim facto

2022“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). {¶ 16} When the Eighth District reviewed the trial court’s reasons for denying Barnes’s motion to withdraw his plea, it applied a nonexhaustive list of factors from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), paragraph three of the syllabus (known as the “Peterseim factors”).

2022“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). {¶ 16} When the Eighth District reviewed the trial court’s reasons for denying Barnes’s motion to withdraw his plea, it applied a nonexhaustive list of factors from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), paragraph three of the syllabus (known as the “Peterseim factors”).

2022“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). {¶ 16} When the Eighth District reviewed the trial court’s reasons for denying Barnes’s motion to withdraw his plea, it applied a nonexhaustive list of factors from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), paragraph three of the syllabus (known as the “Peterseim factors”).

2022“Failure on any of those points renders enforcement of the plea unconstitutional under both the United States and the Ohio Constitution.” State v. Engle, 74 Ohio St.3d 525, 527 , 660 N.E.2d 450 (1996). {¶ 16} When the Eighth District reviewed the trial court’s reasons for denying Barnes’s motion to withdraw his plea, it applied a nonexhaustive list of factors from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), paragraph three of the syllabus (known as the “Peterseim factors”).

2022Id. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).

2022Id. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).

2022Fayette No. CA2016-05-007, 2016-Ohio-8232, ¶ 13 . {¶ 14} The determination of whether the attorney fees are reasonable and the amount of those fees are matters within the probate court's discretion and will not be reversed on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion.

2022Id. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).

2022Id. “[N]either R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual findings on the record.” Jones at ¶ 20 , citing State v. Wilson, 129 Ohio St.3d 214 , 2011-Ohio-2669 , 951 N.E.2d 381 , ¶ 31; State v. Arnett, 88 Ohio St.3d 208, 215 , 724 N.E.2d 793 (2000).

2021R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) reads, in pertinent part: In determining the best interest of a child * * *, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (c) The custodial history of the child * * *; Cas

2021R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) reads, in pertinent part: In determining the best interest of a child * * *, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including, but not limited to, the following: (a) The interaction and interrelationship of the child with the child's parents, siblings, relatives, foster caregivers and out-of-home providers, and any other person who may significantly affect the child; (b) The wishes of the child, as expressed directly by the child or through the child's guardian ad litem, with due regard for the maturity of the child; (c) The custodial history of the child * * *; Cas

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’

2020Nevertheless, we believe it may be helpful to trial courts and 37 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO parties if we set forth a nonexhaustive list of factors that may be used in making this determination, with the understanding that these factors may not be applicable in every case and that in other cases, other relevant factors may be identified and applied. {¶ 126} We find the following factors relevant to making the determination in this case: (1) the length of the victim-impact testimony, see Lang, 129 Ohio St.3d 512 , 2011-Ohio-4215 , 954 N.E.2d 596 , at ¶ 238 (witnesses briefly summarized the victims’