20 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2002–2026 8 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 sentences2020In fact, 1 In his brief, Stiger also refers to nine “factors” in support of his claim that a “manifest injustice has occurred.” Those factors, commonly referred to as “Fish factors,” after State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), apply to pre- sentencing motions to withdraw and, therefore, have no applicability in this case. 2020In fact, 1 In his brief, Stiger also refers to nine “factors” in support of his claim that a “manifest injustice has occurred.” Those factors, commonly referred to as “Fish factors,” after State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995), apply to pre- sentencing motions to withdraw and, therefore, have no applicability in this case. | 2 | 7 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2026Id. {¶60} When an appellant asserts a substantive challenge to the trial court’s decision overruling a pre-trial motion to withdraw plea, we look to nine factors (“Fish factors”) to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion: (1) whether the state will be prejudiced by withdrawal; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; (5) the extent of the hearing on the motion to withdraw; (6) whether the trial court gave full and fair consi 2024Kendricks agrees that Ohio courts should begin with the premise that presentence motions to withdraw should be liberally granted under Xie and that “even under an analysis of the Fish factors, the court abused its discretion in this case.” Brief of appellant, p. 12., citing Fish at id., and Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 584 N.E.2d 715 . | 1 | 7 |
State v. Jonesgreen2 sentences2025Whether [a defendant] will be successful in those defenses is for a jury to decide.” State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-951, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.). {¶51} Based upon the Fish factors and the liberal standard of granting presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas, I would sustain Appellant’s assignment of error and reverse the judgment of the trial court. 2025Whether [a defendant] will be successful in those defenses is for a jury to decide.” State v. Jones, 2016-Ohio-951, ¶ 29 (10th Dist.). {¶51} Based upon the Fish factors and the liberal standard of granting presentence motions to withdraw guilty pleas, I would sustain Appellant’s assignment of error and reverse the judgment of the trial court. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Millergreen2 sentences2025See State v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-2157, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.) (“When applying this standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.”). {¶18} We have adopted a non-exhaustive list of nine factors a trial court must weigh when considering a presentence motion to withdraw a plea: (1) whether the state will be prejudiced by withdrawal; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; (5) the extent of the hearing on 2025See State v. Miller, 2019-Ohio-2157, ¶ 11 (3d Dist.) (“When applying this standard, a reviewing court may not simply substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.”). {¶18} We have adopted a non-exhaustive list of nine factors a trial court must weigh when considering a presentence motion to withdraw a plea: (1) whether the state will be prejudiced by withdrawal; (2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; (3) the extent of the Crim.R. 11 plea hearing; (4) whether the defendant understood the nature of the charges and potential sentences; (5) the extent of the hearing on | 1 | 1 |
State v. Gabbard, Unpublished Decision (2-5-2007)green1 sentence2007In addition to these factors, other considerations include "(1) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; (2) whether the motion set out specific reasons for the withdrawal; (3) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and the possible penalties; and (4) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges." Id., citing Fish at 240 ; see, also, State v. Gabbard , Clermont App. No. CA2006-03-025, 2007-Ohio-461 (applying Peterseim and Fish factors). {¶ 22} Turning to these factors in the context of the case at bar, we find that a majorit | 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 sentences2012See, also, State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 526-527 , 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992); State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895, 898-899 , 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist.2000). {¶18} That said, we have noted that some of the Fish factors may be relevant in reviewing a post-sentence motion. 2012See, also, State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 526-527 , 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992); State v. Cuthbertson, 139 Ohio App.3d 895, 898-899 , 746 N.E.2d 197 (7th Dist.2000). {¶18} That said, we have noted that some of the Fish factors may be relevant in reviewing a post-sentence motion. | 4 | 2012–2020 |
State v. Preztak
green
2 sentences2023Stykes v. Colerain Twnship., 2019-Ohio-3937 , 145 N.E.3d 1123 , ¶ 10, fn. 1 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Preztak, 181 Ohio App.3d 106 , 2009-Ohio-621 , 907 N.E.2d 1254 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In our continuing effort to ensure that the appropriate legal standards are being applied by this court, however, we find that any Ohio Supreme Court decision that 13. arguably impacts an issue before us warrants careful review. 2023Stykes v. Colerain Twnship., 2019-Ohio-3937 , 145 N.E.3d 1123 , ¶ 10, fn. 1 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Preztak, 181 Ohio App.3d 106 , 2009-Ohio-621 , 907 N.E.2d 1254 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In our continuing effort to ensure that the appropriate legal standards are being applied by this court, however, we find that any Ohio Supreme Court decision that 13. arguably impacts an issue before us warrants careful review. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
Stykes v. Colerain Twp.
neutral
2 sentences2023Stykes v. Colerain Twnship., 2019-Ohio-3937 , 145 N.E.3d 1123 , ¶ 10, fn. 1 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Preztak, 181 Ohio App.3d 106 , 2009-Ohio-621 , 907 N.E.2d 1254 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In our continuing effort to ensure that the appropriate legal standards are being applied by this court, however, we find that any Ohio Supreme Court decision that 13. arguably impacts an issue before us warrants careful review. 2023Stykes v. Colerain Twnship., 2019-Ohio-3937 , 145 N.E.3d 1123 , ¶ 10, fn. 1 (1st Dist.), citing State v. Preztak, 181 Ohio App.3d 106 , 2009-Ohio-621 , 907 N.E.2d 1254 (8th Dist.). {¶ 26} In our continuing effort to ensure that the appropriate legal standards are being applied by this court, however, we find that any Ohio Supreme Court decision that 13. arguably impacts an issue before us warrants careful review. | 2 | 2023–2023 |
State v. Carter
green
2 sentences2026Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d at 558 . {¶73} The trial court opined all of the Fish factors favored the state. 2026Carter, 72 Ohio St.3d at 558 . {¶73} The trial court opined all of the Fish factors favored the state. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Yu
neutral
2 sentences2025Case Nos. 24 BE 0037, 24 BE 0041 [Cite as State v. Yu, 2025-Ohio-2377 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed. 2025Case Nos. 24 BE 0037, 24 BE 0041 [Cite as State v. Yu, 2025-Ohio-2377 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, the assignments of error are overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Belmont County, Ohio, is affirmed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. Cheza
neutral
2 sentences2025Case No. 24 MA 0105 [Cite as State v. Cheza, 2025-Ohio-3127 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. 2025Case No. 24 MA 0105 [Cite as State v. Cheza, 2025-Ohio-3127 .] For the reasons stated in the Opinion rendered herein, Appellant’s assignment of error is overruled and it is the final judgment and order of this Court that the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning County, Ohio, is affirmed. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
State v. McCoy
neutral
2 sentences2024C-220279 and C-220281, 2023-Ohio-361, ¶ 11 , quoting Howell at ¶ 10. {¶7} The Fish factors are non-exhaustive—trial and appellate courts may consider other factors as dictated by the circumstances of the particular case. 2024C-220279 and C-220281, 2023-Ohio-361, ¶ 11 , quoting Howell at ¶ 10. {¶7} The Fish factors are non-exhaustive—trial and appellate courts may consider other factors as dictated by the circumstances of the particular case. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Jones
green
2 sentences2024Mahoning No. 09 MA 50, 2011-Ohio-2903, ¶ 20 . {¶17} The trial court fully considered the Fish factors, finding nearly all of the factors weighed in favor of denying the plea withdrawal, and reasonably concluded, on these facts, that Mr. Zachary did not have a sufficient reason to withdraw his plea. 2024Mahoning No. 09 MA 50, 2011-Ohio-2903, ¶ 20 . {¶17} The trial court fully considered the Fish factors, finding nearly all of the factors weighed in favor of denying the plea withdrawal, and reasonably concluded, on these facts, that Mr. Zachary did not have a sufficient reason to withdraw his plea. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Burns, Unpublished Decision (10-3-2005)
green
2 sentences2022Butler No. CA2004-07-084, 2005-Ohio-5290, ¶ 25 , quoting Xie. 7. (1) Prejudice to the state by withdrawal of Spigner’s guilty plea {¶ 17} Prejudice to the state “[g]enerally * * * involves one or more witnesses becoming unavailable due to the delay in the trial resulting from the plea withdrawal.” State v. Preston, 2d Dist. 2022Butler No. CA2004-07-084, 2005-Ohio-5290, ¶ 25 , quoting Xie. 7. (1) Prejudice to the state by withdrawal of Spigner’s guilty plea {¶ 17} Prejudice to the state “[g]enerally * * * involves one or more witnesses becoming unavailable due to the delay in the trial resulting from the plea withdrawal.” State v. Preston, 2d Dist. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Eversole, Unpublished Decision (8-4-2006)
green
1 sentence2019E-05-073, E-05-076, E-05-074, E-05-075, 2006-Ohio-3988, ¶ 13 , citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st.Dist.1995). {¶ 9} At the October 1, 2018 hearing, in rendering its decision on appellant’s motion to withdraw his plea, the trial court indicated that it thoroughly examined each of the nine Fish factors. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
State v. Moore, 06 Co 74 (3-5-2008)
green
2 sentences2011No. 06 CO 74 , 2008-Ohio-1039, ¶13 . {21} “The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Xie at paragraph two of the syllabus. 2011No. 06 CO 74 , 2008-Ohio-1039, ¶13 . {21} “The decision to grant or deny a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is within the sound discretion of the trial court.” Xie at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
State v. Peterseim
green
1 sentence2007In addition to these factors, other considerations include "(1) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; (2) whether the motion set out specific reasons for the withdrawal; (3) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and the possible penalties; and (4) whether the accused was perhaps not guilty or had a complete defense to the charges." Id., citing Fish at 240 ; see, also, State v. Gabbard , Clermont App. No. CA2006-03-025, 2007-Ohio-461 (applying Peterseim and Fish factors). {¶ 22} Turning to these factors in the context of the case at bar, we find that a majorit | 1 | 2007–2007 |
State v. Maurer
green
2 sentences2005That finding makes sense and, together with the other factors weighed by the trial court, convinces me to vote to affirm. {¶ 16} I concur with the balance of the lead opinion as well. 1 State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 527 , 584 N.E.2d 715. 2 Id. 3 State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 473 N.E.2d 768. 4 State v. Jefferson, 1st Dist. 2005That finding makes sense and, together with the other factors weighed by the trial court, convinces me to vote to affirm. {¶ 16} I concur with the balance of the lead opinion as well. 1 State v. Xie (1992), 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 527 , 584 N.E.2d 715. 2 Id. 3 State v. Maurer (1984), 15 Ohio St.3d 239 , 473 N.E.2d 768. 4 State v. Jefferson, 1st Dist. | 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.