129 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 1997–2026 30 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. Smithgreen2 sentences2020Further, an “undue delay between the occurrence of the alleged cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea and the Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00158 6 filing of a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 is a factor adversely affecting the credibility of the movant and mitigating against the granting of the motion.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). {¶15} Under the manifest injustice standard, a post-sentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases. 2020Further, an “undue delay between the occurrence of the alleged cause for withdrawal of a guilty plea and the Stark County, Case No. 2019CA00158 6 filing of a motion under Crim.R. 32.1 is a factor adversely affecting the credibility of the movant and mitigating against the granting of the motion.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). {¶15} Under the manifest injustice standard, a post-sentence withdrawal motion is allowable only in extraordinary cases. | 10 | 62 |
State ex rel. Schneider v. Kreinergreen2 sentences2026Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208 (1998). {¶ 15} Accordingly, a post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty plea is permissible only in extraordinary cases under the manifest injustice standard. 2023Schneider v. Kreiner, 83 Ohio St.3d 203, 208 (1998). {¶ 18} Accordingly, a post-sentence withdrawal of a guilty or no contest plea is permissible only in extraordinary cases under the manifest injustice standard. | 8 | 8 |
State v. Turnergreen2 sentences2022“The manifest-injustice standard demands a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a manifest injustice.” State v. Turner, 171 Ohio App.3d 82 , 2007-Ohio-1346 , 869 N.E.2d 708, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.). {¶ 13} A Crim.R. 32.1 motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. 2022“The manifest-injustice standard demands a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a manifest injustice.” State v. Turner, 171 Ohio App.3d 82 , 2007-Ohio-1346 , 869 N.E.2d 708, ¶ 20 (2d Dist.). {¶ 13} A Crim.R. 32.1 motion is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. | 4 | 4 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2018Bozso now appeals, presenting the following assignment of error for our review: "The trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea." Standard of Review {¶ 6} Generally, a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is subject to a manifest injustice standard, State v. Xie , 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 526, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992), and an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a plea absent an abuse of discretion. 2018Bozso now appeals, presenting the following assignment of error for our review: "The trial court erred by denying appellant's motion to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea." Standard of Review {¶ 6} Generally, a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea is subject to a manifest injustice standard, State v. Xie , 62 Ohio St.3d 521 , 526, 584 N.E.2d 715 (1992), and an appellate court will not reverse a trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a plea absent an abuse of discretion. | 3 | 13 |
State v. Caraballogreen2 sentences2020This is consistent with the objective of the stricter manifest-injustice standard for postsentence motions, which is aimed at discouraging defendants “from pleading guilty to test the weight of potential reprisal, and later withdraw[ing] the plea if the sentence was unexpectedly severe.” State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 , 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). {¶ 16} In this case, the record demonstrates Hawke learned of the trial court’s sentencing decision prior to the sentencing hearing. 2020This is consistent with the objective of the stricter manifest-injustice standard for postsentence motions, which is aimed at discouraging defendants “from pleading guilty to test the weight of potential reprisal, and later withdraw[ing] the plea if the sentence was unexpectedly severe.” State v. Caraballo, 17 Ohio St.3d 66, 67 , 477 N.E.2d 627 (1985). {¶ 16} In this case, the record demonstrates Hawke learned of the trial court’s sentencing decision prior to the sentencing hearing. | 2 | 5 |
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen2 sentences2024Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶8} In moving to withdraw his plea, Mr. Manning argued that he satisfied the manifest injustice standard because he was never informed his conviction would subject him to a firearms disability, the court otherwise failed to advise him of the effect of his plea under Crim.R. 11(B), and the court never secured his waiver of counsel on the record in open court. 2017Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶8} “However, the manifest injustice standard does not apply to plea withdrawal motions filed pursuant to R.C. 2943.031(D)”. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Francisgreen2 sentences2019Notably, the Ohio General Assembly, in R.C. 2943.031, does not require that the manifest-injustice standard be met when a postsentence motion alleges a trial court failed to advise a defendant of immigration consequences, because of the "serious consequences of a criminal conviction on a noncitizen's status in this country." State v. Francis , 104 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2004-Ohio-6894 , 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 26. 2019Notably, the Ohio General Assembly, in R.C. 2943.031, does not require that the manifest-injustice standard be met when a postsentence motion alleges a trial court failed to advise a defendant of immigration consequences, because of the “serious consequences of a criminal conviction on a noncitizen’s status in this country.” State v. Francis, 104 Ohio St.3d 490 , 2004- Ohio-6894, 820 N.E.2d 355 , ¶ 26. 14 January Term, 2019 proceeding shows that Romero’s primary concern during the sentencing hearing was whether he would be able to continue working after his conviction. | 1 | 6 |
State v. Stumpfgreen2 sentences2021Montgomery No. 19049, 2003-Ohio- 3237, ¶ 6, citing Crim.R. 32.1 and State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95, 104 , 512 N.E.2d 598 (1987). “‘A manifest injustice standard is an extremely high standard, which permits withdrawal of a plea only in extraordinary cases.’” Id., quoting State v. Allen, 8th Dist. 2021Montgomery No. 19049, 2003-Ohio- 3237, ¶ 6, citing Crim.R. 32.1 and State v. Stumpf, 32 Ohio St.3d 95, 104 , 512 N.E.2d 598 (1987). “‘A manifest injustice standard is an extremely high standard, which permits withdrawal of a plea only in extraordinary cases.’” Id., quoting State v. Allen, 8th Dist. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Gibson, 2007-P-0021 (12-21-2007)green2 sentences2022Portage No. 2007-P- 0021, 2007-Ohio-6926, ¶ 20 ], quoting State v. Allen, 8th Dist. 2011No. 2007-P-0021, 2007-Ohio-6926, ¶20 (quoting State v. Thomson, 6th Dist. | 1 | 2 |
State v. Fugate, Unpublished Decision (1-5-2007)green1 sentence2026State v. Fugate, 2007-Ohio-26, ¶ 10 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Honaker, Unpublished Decision (11-23-2004)green1 sentence2026Enyart at ¶ 18 , citing State v. Honaker, 2004-Ohio-6256, ¶ 7 (10th Dist.), citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261, 264 (1977). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sheppardgreen1 sentence2026State v. Sheppard, 2025-Ohio-4882, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hawkegreen1 sentence2026(Citations omitted.) State v. Cunigan, 2011- Ohio-4010, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). {¶ 17} Under the manifest-injustice standard suggested by defense counsel, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling Slaughter’s motion. “‘A manifest injustice is a clear or openly unjust act; an extraordinary and fundamental flaw in the plea proceeding.’” State v. Hawke, 2020-Ohio-511, ¶ 13 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Yapp, 2015-Ohio-1654 , ¶ 8 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Campbellgreen1 sentence2025Although ‘“a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted,”’ ‘“a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing.”’ State v. Campbell, 2018-Ohio-681, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527 (1992). ‘“A mere change of heart regarding a guilty plea and the possible sentence is insufficient justification for the withdrawal of a plea.”’ Id., quoting State v. Bloom, 2012-Ohio-3805, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Bloomgreen1 sentence2025Although ‘“a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea should be freely and liberally granted,”’ ‘“a defendant does not have an absolute right to withdraw a plea prior to sentencing.”’ State v. Campbell, 2018-Ohio-681, ¶ 8 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521, 527 (1992). ‘“A mere change of heart regarding a guilty plea and the possible sentence is insufficient justification for the withdrawal of a plea.”’ Id., quoting State v. Bloom, 2012-Ohio-3805, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Thomasgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Dalygreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Maysgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Adamsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Carswell, Unpublished Decision (10-4-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Richardsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Daltongreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Yanezgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nathangreen | 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. Montgomery
green
2 sentences2018Under the manifest injustice standard, a postsentence motion to withdraw a plea is permitted "only in extraordinary cases." State v. Montgomery , 2013-Ohio-4193 , 997 N.E.2d 579 , ¶ 61 (8th Dist.), citing Smith at 264, 361 N.E.2d 1324 . {¶ 15} The determination of whether the defendant has met his or her burden of establishing "a manifest injustice" is within the sound discretion of the trial court. 2017Under the manifest injustice standard, a postsentence motion to withdraw a plea is permitted “only in extraordinary cases.” State v. Montgomery, 2013-Ohio-4193 , 997 N.E.2d 579 , ¶ 61 (8th Dist.), citing Smith at 264 . {¶23} The determination of whether the defendant has met his or her burden of establishing “a manifest injustice” is within the sound discretion of the trial court. | 5 | 2014–2018 |
State v. Ketterer
green
2 sentences2022"Only if the claim is not barred by res judicata should the court proceed to the manifest injustice standard." Creech at ¶ 20, citing Reynolds at ¶ 27. {¶ 64} "Ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute a basis for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. [T]he doctrine of res judicata, however, bars review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when such claims were or could have been asserted on direct appeal." Creech at ¶ 20, citing State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206 , ¶ 23, State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59 . 2022"Only if the claim is not barred by res judicata should the court proceed to the manifest injustice standard." Creech at ¶ 20, citing Reynolds at ¶ 27. {¶ 64} "Ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute a basis for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. [T]he doctrine of res judicata, however, bars review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when such claims were or could have been asserted on direct appeal." Creech at ¶ 20, citing State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206 , ¶ 23, State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59 . | 3 | 2021–2023 |
State v. Thomson, Unpublished Decision (3-17-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2021Lucas No. L-05-1213, 2006-Ohio-1224, ¶ 48 , quoting State v. Woods, 8th Dist. 2019Lucas No. L-05-1213, 2006-Ohio-1224, ¶48 , citing State v. Woods, 8th Dist. | 3 | 2007–2021 |
State v. Weber
green
2 sentences2002No. 95, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 531-532. 4 State v. Weber (1997), 125 Ohio App.3d 120 , 129 , 707 N.E.2d 1178 . 5 There are at least three competing theories on this issue; (1) that a Crim.R. 32.1 motion filed after the time for direct appeal should be treated as a motion for postconviction relief, State v. Hill (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 658 , 661 , 718 N.E.2d 978 ; (2) that the motion retains its separate character but res judicata applies to bar issues that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction petition, State v. Reynolds, Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , at q 2002No. 95, 143 Ohio Laws, Part I, 531-532. 4 State v. Weber (1997), 125 Ohio App.3d 120 , 129 , 707 N.E.2d 1178 . 5 There are at least three competing theories on this issue; (1) that a Crim.R. 32.1 motion filed after the time for direct appeal should be treated as a motion for postconviction relief, State v. Hill (1998), 129 Ohio App.3d 658 , 661 , 718 N.E.2d 978 ; (2) that the motion retains its separate character but res judicata applies to bar issues that could have been raised on direct appeal or in a postconviction petition, State v. Reynolds, Putnam App. No. 12-01-11, 2002-Ohio-2823 , at q | 3 | 2002–2018 |
State v. McWhorter
green
2 sentences2025We therefore reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the matter to the trial court to -3- Fayette CA2025-03-002 consider the motion using the proper standard for presentence motions to withdraw a guilty plea in accordance with State v. Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d 521 (1992); and State v. McWhorter, 2024-Ohio-5753 (12th Dist.). 2024Id. {¶ 9} The trial court denied appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that a withdrawal of the plea was not necessary "to correct a manifest injustice." However, "[a]s set forth in [Crim.R. 32.1], the manifest injustice standard applies to post-sentence plea withdrawals." State v. Thomas, 2023-Ohio-3903, ¶ 16 (5th Dist.); State v. Daly, 2015-Ohio-5034, ¶ 42, fn. 2 (12th Dist.) Therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by analyzing the information presented at the July 19, 2024 hearing and denying appellant's presentence motion to withdraw his guilty p | 2 | 2024–2025 |
State v. Straley (Slip Opinion)
green
2 sentences2022"Only if the claim is not barred by res judicata should the court proceed to the manifest injustice standard." Creech at ¶ 20, citing Reynolds at ¶ 27. {¶ 64} "Ineffective assistance of counsel may constitute a basis for a motion to withdraw a guilty plea pursuant to Crim.R. 32.1. [T]he doctrine of res judicata, however, bars review of a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel when such claims were or could have been asserted on direct appeal." Creech at ¶ 20, citing State v. Straley, 159 Ohio St.3d 82 , 2019-Ohio-5206 , ¶ 23, State v. Ketterer, 126 Ohio St.3d 448 , 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59 . 2021Id. | 2 | 2021–2022 |
State v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2006)
neutral
2 sentences2021“The manifest injustice standard ‘“comprehends a fundamental flaw in the path of justice so extraordinary that the defendant could not have sought redress from the resulting prejudice through another form of application reasonably available to him or her.”’” Id., quoting State v. Thomson, 6th Dist. 2021Cuyahoga No. 86684, 2006-Ohio-3164, ¶ 10 . | 2 | 2007–2021 |
State v. Ross
neutral
2 sentences2020Wayne No. 13CA0015, 2014-Ohio-1675, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Brown, 9th Dist. 2019Wayne No. 13CA0015, 2014-Ohio-1675, ¶ 14 , quoting State v. Brown, 9th Dist. | 2 | 2019–2020 |
Ohio v. Vinson
green
2 sentences2018State v. Vinson , 2016-Ohio-7604 , 73 N.E.3d 1025 , ¶ 42 (8th Dist.), citing Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus. "[T]he good faith, credibility and weight of the movant's assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court." Smith . 2017State v. Vinson, 2016-Ohio-7604 , 73 N.E.3d 1025 , ¶ 42 (8th Dist.), citing Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus. | 2 | 2017–2018 |
State v. Conner
green
2 sentences2014Cuyahoga No. 98084, 2012-Ohio-3579, ¶ 5 . {¶8} This court reviews a denial of a motion to withdraw a no contest plea for an abuse of discretion. 2013No. 98084, 2012-Ohio-3579, ¶ 5 . | 2 | 2013–2014 |
State v. Bell
neutral
2 sentences2012No. 95719, 2011-Ohio-1965, ¶ 22 . {¶20} The state responds that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to even consider the motion, alleging defendant could have raised it on direct appeal rendering the matter barred by res judicata. 2011Hence, “a Crim.R. 32.1 motion to withdraw a plea filed after a defendant has been sentenced — without the proper postrelease control — is a postsentence motion that must meet the stricter manifest injustice standard.” Id. | 2 | 2011–2012 |
State v. Bush
green
2 sentences2011State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522, at ¶ 13 . 2007State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522 ; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 3 O.O.3d 402 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 ; State v. Hartzell (Aug. 20, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17499, 1999 WL 957746 The manifest-injustice standard demands a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a manifest injustice. | 2 | 2007–2011 |
State v. Bush
green
2 sentences2007State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522 ; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 3 O.O.3d 402 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 ; State v. Hartzell (Aug. 20, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17499, 1999 WL 957746 The manifest-injustice standard demands a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a manifest injustice. 2007State v. Bush, 96 Ohio St.3d 235 , 2002-Ohio-3993 , 773 N.E.2d 522 ; State v. Smith (1977), 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 3 O.O.3d 402 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 ; State v. Hartzell (Aug. 20, 1999), Montgomery App. No. 17499, 1999 WL 957746 The manifest-injustice standard demands a showing of extraordinary circumstances, and the defendant bears the burden of proving the existence of a manifest injustice. | 2 | 2007–2011 |
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. Hixon
neutral
1 sentence2025Hixon I, 2024-Ohio-6058 . {¶ 8} In so holding, this court stated: "The trial court denied [Hixon's] presentence motion to withdraw his guilty plea on the ground that a withdrawal of the plea was not necessary 'to correct a manifest injustice.' However, as set forth in Crim.R. 32.1, the manifest injustice standard applies to post-sentence plea withdrawals." Id. at ¶ 9. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| State v. Massey green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| State v. Wallen, 21688 (5-4-2007) green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Logue v. Logue green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| State v. Bradford green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp. green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Michaels green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Vitale green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Williams, Unpublished Decision (11-18-2004) green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Padilla v. Kentucky green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Twinsburg v. Milano green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Hamed neutral | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Caver, 90945 (11-26-2008) neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Smith green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Aquino neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Maney neutral | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Wong Sun v. United States green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Mapp v. Ohio green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Miller green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| State v. Hopkins neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Cuthbertson green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Fish green | 1 | 2012–2012 |
| State v. Singleton red | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Harrison green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| Terry Lynn King v. Michael Dutton, Warden green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.