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.
22 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2021–2026 22 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. Wrotengreen2 sentences2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, 2025Wroten at ¶ 19, 20 . | 4 | 4 |
State v. Fishred2 sentences2023See State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.); State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980). {¶30} However, in State v. Barnes, the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2023See State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.); State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980). {¶30} However, in State v. Barnes, the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 3 | 5 |
State v. Griffingreen2 sentences2025The trial court made this statement during its consideration of the nine-factor test in Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d. at 554. 2025I am one hundred percent innocent . . . .” The trial court considered, on the record, the four-factor test in State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1980), and the nine-factor test in State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (7th Dist. 2001), that appellate courts routinely apply in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in its ruling on a presentence motion to withdraw a plea. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Barnesgreen2 sentences2025“A mere change of heart is not a legitimate and reasonable basis for the withdrawal of a plea.” Howard at ¶ 24 . {¶46} In State v. Barnes, 2022-Ohio-4486 , the Supreme Court of Ohio “referenced the nine-factor test” but “neither applied it nor rejected it.” Estep at ¶ 20 . 2025Nonetheless, regardless of whether those factors are considered, as recognized by Justice Brunner, “the nine-factor analysis should not overshadow the exercise of judicial discretion needed to analyze a presentence plea withdrawal in accordance with the basic principles established by Xie and Crim.R. 32.1.” Barnes at ¶ 40 (Brunner, J., concurring). | 2 | 8 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2025See Barnes, 2022- Ohio-4486, ¶ 24 (agreeing with the defendant that “the Peterseim factors and the Heisa factors do not apply here”); and id. at ¶ 28 (Brunner, J., concurring) (writing separately because the concurring justice would “go further and would discard the nine-factor analysis that has been created and adopted by Ohio’s courts of appeals in favor of a renewed focus on Crim.R. 32.1 and the guiding standards set forth by [the Ohio Supreme Court] in” Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 ). 2025Thus, “[a] mere change of heart is not a legitimate and reasonable basis for the withdrawal of a plea.” Id., quoting Howard at ¶ 24 , citing State v. Campbell, 2009-Ohio-4992 , ¶ 7 (4th Dist.). {¶21} In State v. Barnes, 2022-Ohio-4486 , the Supreme Court of Ohio “referenced the nine-factor test” but “neither applied it nor rejected it.” Estep at ¶ 20 . | 2 | 6 |
State v. Simsgreen2 sentences2023See State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.); State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980). {¶30} However, in State v. Barnes, the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2023See State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1995), overruled on other grounds by State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.); State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist. 1980). {¶30} However, in State v. Barnes, the Ohio Supreme Court did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 2 | 3 |
State v. Griergreen2 sentences2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, 2023State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966 , 211 N.E.3d 842, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); State v. Kohler, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22 CAA 10 0068, 2023-Ohio-1772, ¶ 14 ; State v. Grier, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1263, 2023-Ohio-207, ¶ 26 ; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111448, 2023-Ohio-371, ¶ 43 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Kohlergreen2 sentences2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, 2023State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966 , 211 N.E.3d 842, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); State v. Kohler, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22 CAA 10 0068, 2023-Ohio-1772, ¶ 14 ; State v. Grier, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1263, 2023-Ohio-207, ¶ 26 ; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111448, 2023-Ohio-371, ¶ 43 . | 1 | 3 |
State v. Gutierrezgreen2 sentences2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, 2025Instead, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that “when a defendant discovers evidence that would have affected his decision to plead guilty, he has a reasonable and legitimate basis to withdraw his guilty plea before sentencing.” State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884 (4th Dist.), ¶ 46, citing Barnes at ¶ 24 . | 1 | 2 |
State v. Ranneygreen1 sentence2026State v. Ranney, 2025-Ohio-2396, ¶ 37 (11th Dist.), citing id. at ¶ 28 (Brunner, J., concurring) (writing separately that she would “discard the nine-factor analysis”). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Facemiregreen1 sentence2025Barnes at ¶ 28. -9- Facemire, 2025-Ohio-1500, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.); State v. McWhorter, 2024-Ohio- 5753, ¶ 12 (12th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Binghamgreen2 sentences2025State v. Bingham, 2019-Ohio-3324, ¶ 42 (3d Dist.). {¶18} However, in Barnes, a divided opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio with four votes in the majority and three in the dissent, the majority did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2025State v. Bingham, 2019-Ohio-3324, ¶ 42 (3d Dist.). {¶18} However, in Barnes, a divided opinion from the Supreme Court of Ohio with four votes in the majority and three in the dissent, the majority did not apply the nine-factor analysis typically applied by appellate courts in cases involving a motion to withdraw a guilty plea. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Edwardsgreen1 sentence2025Edwards, 2023-Ohio-3213, ¶ 8-9 (3d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Wallacegreen1 sentence2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Jacksongreen1 sentence2025See also Jackson, 2024-Ohio-2599, at ¶ 29 (11th Dist.) (noting that Peterseim is not the exclusive test in the review of presentence motions to withdraw a guilty plea and concluding that this court should analyze the trial court’s ruling on such a motion using the same test applied by the trial court). {¶38} As addressed above, pursuant to Peterseim, a trial court does not err in denying a presentence motion to withdraw a plea if the following factors are met: (1) the accused was represented by highly competent counsel when entering his plea; (2) the PAGE 14 OF 18 accused was afforded a full h | 1 | 1 |
State v. Figueroagreen1 sentence2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hogangreen1 sentence2025Based on the record, the majority concluded that the State had not overcome the “presumption that Barnes’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea must be freely and liberally granted.” Id. at ¶ 23. {¶20} Since Barnes was decided, many Ohio appellate courts have noted that the Supreme Court of Ohio did not entirely reject the nine-factor analysis that appellate courts have typically applied in evaluating motions to withdraw guilty pleas.1 State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); Wallace, 2023-Ohio-3014, ¶ 29 (3d Dist.); State v. Gutierrez, 2025-Ohio-1884, ¶ 45 (4th Dist.); State v. Kohler, | 1 | 1 |
State v. Shaibigreen1 sentence2023See, e.g., State v. Shaibi, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2020-L-096, 2021-Ohio-660, ¶ 7 (“this court has generally applied the four-prong test set forth * * * in Peterseim rather than the nine-factor test * * * in State v. Fish”); State v. Field, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2011-G-3010, 2012-Ohio-5221 , ¶ 11 (since the “trial court stated that it considered those factors before rendering its judgment * * * we will apply the Peterseim factors here in order to determine whether the trial court erred in denying appellant’s motion”). {¶13} The Supreme Court of Ohio has recently reiterated, however, that the dete | 1 | 1 |
State v. Blankenshipgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Couch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060232, 2007-Ohio-654, ¶ 6 (referring to nine-factor analysis); State v. Blankenship, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29068, 2021-Ohio-3612, ¶ 11-21 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-21-05 through 5-21-08, 2022-Ohio-742, ¶ 22-32 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610 , ¶ 12-35 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Lewis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 06 0025, 2021- Ohio-530, ¶ 39-53 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Euler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD- | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Eulergreen | 1 | 1 |
State v. Pamesgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Couch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060232, 2007-Ohio-654, ¶ 6 (referring to nine-factor analysis); State v. Blankenship, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29068, 2021-Ohio-3612, ¶ 11-21 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-21-05 through 5-21-08, 2022-Ohio-742, ¶ 22-32 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610 , ¶ 12-35 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Lewis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 06 0025, 2021- Ohio-530, ¶ 39-53 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Euler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Smithgreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Couch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060232, 2007-Ohio-654, ¶ 6 (referring to nine-factor analysis); State v. Blankenship, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29068, 2021-Ohio-3612, ¶ 11-21 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-21-05 through 5-21-08, 2022-Ohio-742, ¶ 22-32 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610 , ¶ 12-35 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Lewis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 06 0025, 2021- Ohio-530, ¶ 39-53 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Euler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Puddergreen1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Couch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060232, 2007-Ohio-654, ¶ 6 (referring to nine-factor analysis); State v. Blankenship, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29068, 2021-Ohio-3612, ¶ 11-21 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-21-05 through 5-21-08, 2022-Ohio-742, ¶ 22-32 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610 , ¶ 12-35 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Lewis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 06 0025, 2021- Ohio-530, ¶ 39-53 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Euler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD- | 1 | 1 |
State v. Couch, Unpublished Decision (2-16-2007)green1 sentence2022See, e.g., State v. Couch, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060232, 2007-Ohio-654, ¶ 6 (referring to nine-factor analysis); State v. Blankenship, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29068, 2021-Ohio-3612, ¶ 11-21 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Smith, 3d Dist. Hancock Nos. 5-21-05 through 5-21-08, 2022-Ohio-742, ¶ 22-32 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Harmon, 4th Dist. Pickaway No. 20CA6, 2021-Ohio-2610 , ¶ 12-35 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Lewis, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 20 CAA 06 0025, 2021- Ohio-530, ¶ 39-53 (applying nine-factor analysis); State v. Euler, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD- | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Owensgreen | 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. Peterseim
green
2 sentences2025I am one hundred percent innocent . . . .” The trial court considered, on the record, the four-factor test in State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1980), and the nine-factor test in State v. Griffin, 141 Ohio App.3d 551 (7th Dist. 2001), that appellate courts routinely apply in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion in its ruling on a presentence motion to withdraw a plea. 2025Our review, therefore, is for abuse of discretion. {¶ 20} In determining whether a trial court has abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this Court has applied the nine-factor test set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d (1st Dist. 1995), which includes four factors from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 (8th Dist. 1980). | 5 | 2023–2025 |
State v. Johnson
green
2 sentences2023State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966 , 211 N.E.3d 842, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); State v. Kohler, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22 CAA 10 0068, 2023-Ohio-1772, ¶ 14-15 ; State v. Grier, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1263, 2023-Ohio-207, ¶ 26 ; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111448, 2023-Ohio-371, ¶ 43 . 2023State v. Wroten, 2023-Ohio-966 , 211 N.E.3d 842, ¶ 31 (2d Dist.); State v. Kohler, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 22 CAA 10 0068, 2023-Ohio-1772, ¶ 14 ; State v. Grier, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-21-1263, 2023-Ohio-207, ¶ 26 ; State v. Johnson, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 111448, 2023-Ohio-371, ¶ 43 . | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Rozell
green
2 sentences2024See also, State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 , (1st Dist. 1995); State v. Rozell, 2018-Ohio-1722 , 111 N.E.3d 861 (2d. 2024See also, State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 , (1st Dist. 1995); State v. Rozell, 2018-Ohio-1722 , 111 N.E.3d 861 (2d. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Strmac
green
2 sentences2024This court’s recent decision in State v. Strmac, 2024-Ohio-2405 (11th Dist.) applied both tests. 2024Id. 8 In his brief, Appellant cites the nine-factor test. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Sellman
neutral
1 sentence2023E.g., State v. Sellman, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2019-CA-3, 2019-Ohio-4185, ¶ 13 . {¶ 20} The test includes four factors taken from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), and requires courts to consider: “(1) whether the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) whether the accused was given a full Crim.R. 11 hearing before entering the plea, (3) whether a full hearing was held on the motion, (4) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion, (5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time, (6) whether the motion sets | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Alexander
green
1 sentence2023State v. Alexander, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 29465, 2023-Ohio-21, ¶ 16-17 . {¶ 19} To evaluate whether a trial court has abused its discretion in overruling a pre-sentence plea withdrawal request, we have applied a nine-factor test outlined in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), overruled on other grounds, State v. Sims, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 (1st Dist.). | 1 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Young, Unpublished Decision (10-15-2004)
green
1 sentence2023E.g., State v. Sellman, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2019-CA-3, 2019-Ohio-4185, ¶ 13 . {¶ 20} The test includes four factors taken from State v. Peterseim, 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 (8th Dist.1980), and requires courts to consider: “(1) whether the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) whether the accused was given a full Crim.R. 11 hearing before entering the plea, (3) whether a full hearing was held on the motion, (4) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion, (5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time, (6) whether the motion sets | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Raimonde v. Van Vlerah green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Harmon, Unpublished Decision (4-8-2005) green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
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.