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.
103 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2001–2026 31 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 |
|---|---|---|
Knapp v. Edwards Laboratoriesgreen2 sentences2025Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St. 2d 197, 199 (1980). {¶18} Appellant’s written acknowledgement of his guilty plea, as well as the transcript of the plea hearing, reflect Appellant represented no promises had been made to him beyond those set forth in the plea regarding the dismissal of counts one and two. 2022“When portions of the transcript necessary for resolution of assigned errors are omitted from the record, the reviewing court has nothing to pass upon and thus, as to those assigned errors, the court has no choice but to presume the validity of the lower court’s proceedings, and affirm.” Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 , 400 N.E.2d 384 (1980). {¶45} Here, however, a transcript of the plea hearing is not necessary for resolution of this appeal. | 7 | 13 |
State v. Bishop (Slip Opinion)green2 sentences2022See also State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 , 2018-Ohio-5132 , 124 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 11 (a defendant must show prejudice if the trial court partially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) in regard to a non- constitutional right, but no showing of prejudice is required if the trial court completely failed to comply). {¶ 25} In this case, the transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Gardner’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. 2022See also State v. Bishop, 156 Ohio St.3d 156 , 2018-Ohio-5132 , 124 N.E.3d 766, ¶ 11 (a defendant must show prejudice if the trial court partially complied with Crim.R. 11(C) in regard to a non- constitutional right, but no showing of prejudice is required if the trial court completely failed to comply). {¶ 25} In this case, the transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Gardner’s plea was made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. | 7 | 8 |
State v. McGlinchgreen2 sentences2019See also State v. McGlinch, 2019-Ohio-1380 , __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.). {¶ 14} We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing, held on April 30, 2019. 2019See also State v. McGlinch, 2019-Ohio-1380 , __ N.E.3d __, ¶ 28 (2d Dist.). {¶ 14} We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing. | 3 | 3 |
State v. Robertsgreen2 sentences2025State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶13 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016- Ohio-1002. 2024State v. Roberts, 2020-Ohio-6722, ¶13 (5th Dist.), citing State v. Marcum, 2016- Ohio-1002. | 2 | 2 |
State v. Xiegreen2 sentences2025Additionally, Pugh affirmed that: no one had promised anything except what had been discussed at the hearing; no one was forcing or threatening him to enter the pleas; he was entering the pleas of his own free will; he was satisfied with trial counsel; and he had no questions regarding the rights he was waiving or the consequences of his plea. {¶9} “This court and others have considered a defendant’s statements at the plea hearing in determining whether the reasons for the request to withdraw a plea have merit.” State v. Zendarski-Metcalf, 2024-Ohio-780, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.) (cases cited); Xie at 2022See Xie, 62 Ohio St.3d at 527 . | 2 | 2 |
State v. Nealgreen1 sentence2026Without a 7 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS transcript of the hearing, we “must presume the regularity of the lower court’s proceedings and affirm the judgment of the court below.” Bumu at ¶ 16 ; see State v. Neal, 2025-Ohio-2499, ¶ 12 (1st Dist.) (presuming the regularity of a plea hearing “and that the court engaged in a sufficient Crim.R. 11 plea colloquy, and provided an explanation of the charges and potential sentence” because the record lacked a transcript of the plea hearing). {¶16} Absent a transcript or other material in the record to substantiate M.L.’s claims, we must presume | 1 | 1 |
State v. Rembertgreen1 sentence2026See, e.g., State v. Grant, 2013-Ohio-2981 , ¶ 11-12 (10th Dist.); State v. Rembert, 2017-Ohio-1173, ¶ 11-14 (10th No. 25AP-858 9 Dist.); Knapp v. Edwards Laboratories, 61 Ohio St.2d 197, 199 (1980). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Hastingsgreen1 sentence2025See Plea Hearing Tr., p.14. {¶ 12} “We have held that ‘if a trial court fails to reconcile its correct oral statement on the length of post-release control with an incorrect statement on post-release control in a plea form, the trial court only partially complies with Crim.R. 11.’ ” State v. Hastings, 2018-Ohio-422, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Lockard, 2015-Ohio-4294, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huffmangreen1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 22. {¶13} Y.S.’s plea agreement included an agreed sentence, which is an agreement to be “‘“bound to a specific sentence or a sentence . . . within a prescribed range.”’” Elliott, 2021-Ohio-424, at ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Jackson, 2020- Ohio-491, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Huffman, 2018-Ohio-1192, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Colegreen1 sentence2025“By following this rule, a court ensures that the plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.” State v. Cole, 2015-Ohio-3793, ¶ 12 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Redavide, 2015-Ohio-3056 , ¶ 12 (2d Dist.). {¶ 16} We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Elliottgreen1 sentence2025Id. at ¶ 22. {¶13} Y.S.’s plea agreement included an agreed sentence, which is an agreement to be “‘“bound to a specific sentence or a sentence . . . within a prescribed range.”’” Elliott, 2021-Ohio-424, at ¶ 13 (1st Dist.), quoting State v. Jackson, 2020- Ohio-491, ¶ 13 (8th Dist.), quoting State v. Huffman, 2018-Ohio-1192, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lockardgreen1 sentence2025See Plea Hearing Tr., p.14. {¶ 12} “We have held that ‘if a trial court fails to reconcile its correct oral statement on the length of post-release control with an incorrect statement on post-release control in a plea form, the trial court only partially complies with Crim.R. 11.’ ” State v. Hastings, 2018-Ohio-422, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Lockard, 2015-Ohio-4294, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Zendarski-Metcalfgreen1 sentence2025Additionally, Pugh affirmed that: no one had promised anything except what had been discussed at the hearing; no one was forcing or threatening him to enter the pleas; he was entering the pleas of his own free will; he was satisfied with trial counsel; and he had no questions regarding the rights he was waiving or the consequences of his plea. {¶9} “This court and others have considered a defendant’s statements at the plea hearing in determining whether the reasons for the request to withdraw a plea have merit.” State v. Zendarski-Metcalf, 2024-Ohio-780, ¶ 17 (11th Dist.) (cases cited); Xie at | 1 | 1 |
State v. Browngreen1 sentence2025See Plea Hearing Tr., p.14. {¶ 12} “We have held that ‘if a trial court fails to reconcile its correct oral statement on the length of post-release control with an incorrect statement on post-release control in a plea form, the trial court only partially complies with Crim.R. 11.’ ” State v. Hastings, 2018-Ohio-422, ¶ 18 (2d Dist.), quoting State v. Lockard, 2015-Ohio-4294, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.), citing State v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-199, ¶ 23 (2d Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Huddleson, Unpublished Decision (8-5-2005)green1 sentence2025“Only if there is a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the defendant would not have pleaded guilty but would have instead insisted on going to trial will the judgment be reversed.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Huddleson, 2005-Ohio-4029, ¶ 9 (2d Dist.). {¶ 12} The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Rogan understood that he had agreed to a sentence of 36 months in prison. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Perrygreen2 sentences2021Perry, 83 Ohio St.3d at 43-44, 48-49 , 697 N.E.2d 624 . 2021Perry, 83 Ohio St.3d at 43-44, 48-49 , 697 N.E.2d 624 . | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Nawmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Marcum (Slip Opinion)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Victorgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Ketterergreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. MacK, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2006)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Pinagreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Columbus v. Hodgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Price, Unpublished Decision (12-12-2003)green | 1 | 1 |
| Wasman v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| North Carolina v. Alfordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Glenn, Unpublished Decision (6-4-2004)green | 1 | 1 |
| State v. Skaggsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rose Chevrolet, Inc. v. Adamsgreen | 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. Nero
green
2 sentences2021“Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.” State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 , 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). {¶ 39} We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and the parties’ plea agreement. 2021“Substantial compliance means that under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant subjectively understands the implications of his plea and the rights he is waiving.” State v. Nero, 56 Ohio St.3d 106, 108 , 564 N.E.2d 474 (1990). {¶ 39} We have reviewed the transcript of the plea hearing and the parties’ plea agreement. | 7 | 2005–2021 |
State v. Stewart
green
2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 98640, 2013-Ohio-1984, ¶ 5 , citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 , 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977). {¶22} After conducting an independent review of the transcript of the plea hearing, we find that the trial court engaged in a complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Gunter. 2017Cuyahoga No. 98640, 2013-Ohio-1984, ¶ 5 , citing State v. Stewart, 51 Ohio St.2d 86 , 364 N.E.2d 1163 (1977). {¶22} After conducting an independent review of the transcript of the plea hearing, we find that the trial court engaged in a complete Crim.R. 11 colloquy with Gunter. | 4 | 2005–2017 |
State v. Smith
green
2 sentences2005Defendant further contends the trial court erred in failing to review the transcript of the plea hearing before ruling on her motion. {¶ 6} Crim.R. 32.1 governs the withdrawal of a guilty plea and provides that "[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea." "A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of m 2004"The standard rests upon practical considerations important to the proper administration of justice, and seeks to avoid the possibility of a defendant pleading * * * to test the weight of potential punishment." Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d at 264 , citing Kadwell v. United States (C.A.9, 1963), 315 F.2d 667 , 670 . {¶ 9} In the present case, the transcript of the plea hearing reveals that before Mr. Robinson pled no contest, the court informed him of the meaning and consequences of his plea. | 4 | 2004–2017 |
State v. Griffith, Unpublished Decision (3-31-2005)
neutral
2 sentences2017Cuyahoga No. 84760, 2005-Ohio-1500, ¶11 . {¶11} As appellant has failed to provide us with the transcript of his guilty plea hearing, we must presume regularity of that proceeding and affirm. 2008No. 84760, 2005-Ohio-1500 , at ¶ 11 . {¶ 23} As noted supra, appellant failed to file the transcript of the guilty plea hearing. | 2 | 2008–2017 |
State v. Ballard
green
2 sentences2008State v. Ellis (June 20, 1996), Franklin App. No. 95APA10-1399, citing Ballard , supra. {¶ 10} The transcript of the plea hearing in this case reflects that the trial judge asked Johnson whether he understood that by pleading guilty he would waive certain constitutional rights; Johnson answered affirmatively. 2008State v. Ballard (1981), 66 Ohio St.2d 473 , cited with approval, State v. Ketterer , 111 Ohio St.3d 70 , 2006-Ohio-5283 , ¶ 7 6. *Page 8 {¶ 38} A review of the transcript of the plea hearing demonstrates the trial court outlined for Freed each of the constitutional rights he possessed prior to the entry of his plea. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Pames
green
1 sentence2026On September 18, 2025, the trial court denied Becks’s motion, citing this court’s decision in State v. Pames, 2022-Ohio-616 (8th Dist.), and sentenced her to one year of community control. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Bond
green
1 sentence2026We will reverse for plain error “only in ‘exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 18 , quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 41} Although not pointed out by the State, the indictment and the transcript of the plea hearing make clear that the vandalism occurred on November 1, 2024, while the burglary and attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle occurred on November 27, 2024. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Long
green
1 sentence2026We will reverse for plain error “only in ‘exceptional circumstances and only to prevent a manifest miscarriage of justice.’” State v. Bond, 2022-Ohio-4150, ¶ 18 , quoting State v. Long, 53 Ohio St.2d 91 , (1978), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶ 41} Although not pointed out by the State, the indictment and the transcript of the plea hearing make clear that the vandalism occurred on November 1, 2024, while the burglary and attempted grand theft of a motor vehicle occurred on November 27, 2024. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Dangler (Slip Opinion)
green
1 sentence2026State v. Dangler, 2020-Ohio-2765, ¶ 10 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
State v. Crawford
neutral
1 sentence2022Scioto No. 16CA3778, 2018-Ohio-2166, ¶ 13 . {¶27} In the instant case, Queen’s notice of appeal did not request a transcript of the plea hearing. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
State v. Selvaggio
neutral
1 sentence2022Lake No. 2017-L- 128, 2018-Ohio-3532 . {¶26} In reviewing the present issue in an Anders context, an appellate court should review the transcript of the plea hearing in light of Criminal Rule 11 and consider whether there are any arguable issues with respect to the knowing, intelligent, and Morrow County, Case No. 2021CA0010 11 voluntary nature of appellant’s guilty plea. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Missouri v. Frye
green
2 sentences2021Given this duty, the Court emphasized that the right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the negotiation Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAA 06 0025 11 and consideration of plea offers that have been rejected or have lapsed. 566 U.S. at 145 , 132 S.Ct. 1399 , 182 L.Ed.2d 379 . {¶26} The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Lewis indicated in response to the court's questions that his pleas were voluntary, that he understood the nature of the charges and penalties, and the agreement concerning his pleas and sentence. 2021Given this duty, the Court emphasized that the right to effective assistance of counsel extends to the negotiation Delaware County, Case No. 20 CAA 06 0025 11 and consideration of plea offers that have been rejected or have lapsed. 566 U.S. at 145 , 132 S.Ct. 1399 , 182 L.Ed.2d 379 . {¶26} The transcript of the plea hearing reflects that Lewis indicated in response to the court's questions that his pleas were voluntary, that he understood the nature of the charges and penalties, and the agreement concerning his pleas and sentence. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
State v. Bowling
neutral
1 sentence2021Bowling, 2019-Ohio-751 at ¶ 8 . | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Volbers-Klarich v. Middletown Management, Inc.
green
2 sentences2021Further, according to the transcript of the plea hearing, which was attached as an exhibit to Small’s petition, the following description of the drugs at issue was read into the record as the basis for Small’s guilty plea: “A search recovered 1,405 oxycodone 30-milligram pills, 50 pills of oxycodone, 15 milligrams * * *.” Pickaway App. No. 20CA1 6 which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” Volbers- Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 , 2010-Ohio-2057 , 929 N.E.2d 434 , ¶ 11. 2021Further, according to the transcript of the plea hearing, which was attached as an exhibit to Small’s petition, the following description of the drugs at issue was read into the record as the basis for Small’s guilty plea: “A search recovered 1,405 oxycodone 30-milligram pills, 50 pills of oxycodone, 15 milligrams * * *.” Pickaway App. No. 20CA1 6 which relief can be granted tests the sufficiency of the complaint.” Volbers- Klarich v. Middletown Mgt., Inc., 125 Ohio St.3d 494 , 2010-Ohio-2057 , 929 N.E.2d 434 , ¶ 11. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| State v. Adams green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cyrus green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Maddickes neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| State v. Cross, 07-Ma-74 (6-27-2008) green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Jones green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| State v. Fitzpatrick green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Burnside green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| State v. Goist, Unpublished Decision (7-23-2004) neutral | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Santobello v. New York green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Morgan v. Eads green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Veney green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Blevins neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Moore neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Drake neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| State v. Sarkozy green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Lambros green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| State v. Swift green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Alabama v. Smith green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Peterseim green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Harder neutral | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| State v. Powell green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| State v. Baker green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| State v. Smith, Ct2007-0073 (6-30-2008) green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Wesaw, 08ca12 (10-23-2008) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Simpkins, Unpublished Decision (11-16-2006) neutral | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| State v. Conrad, 88934 (10-25-2007) 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.