non-exhaustive list factors in Ohio

2022A non-exhaustive list of factors relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the likelihood of recidivism is set forth in divisions (B), (C), (D), and (E) of R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The Ohio Supreme Court has described these two statutory sections “as a general judicial guide for every sentencing” in which “there is no mandate for judicial fact- finding.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , ¶ 36 and 42; State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20 (“neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual

2022A non-exhaustive list of factors relating to the seriousness of the conduct and the likelihood of recidivism is set forth in divisions (B), (C), (D), and (E) of R.C. 2929.12. {¶47} The Ohio Supreme Court has described these two statutory sections “as a general judicial guide for every sentencing” in which “there is no mandate for judicial fact- finding.” State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio-856 , 845 N.E.2d 470 , ¶ 36 and 42; State v. Jones, 163 Ohio St.3d 242 , 2020-Ohio-6729 , 169 N.E.3d 649, ¶ 20 (“neither R.C. 2929.11 nor 2929.12 requires a trial court to make any specific factual

2021The statute provides a non-exhaustive 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. {¶54} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 , the Ohio Supreme Court discussed the effect of State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio- 856, 845 N.E.2d 470 , on felony sentencing.

2021The statute provides a non-exhaustive 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. {¶54} In State v. Kalish, 120 Ohio St.3d 23 , 2008-Ohio-4912 , 896 N.E.2d 124 , the Ohio Supreme Court discussed the effect of State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 , 2006-Ohio- 856, 845 N.E.2d 470 , on felony sentencing.

2019The court stated that in Foster the Court severed the judicial-fact-finding portions of R.C. 2929.14, holding that "trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." Kalish at ¶ 1 and ¶ 11, citing Foster at ¶ 100, See also, State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 ; State v. Firouzmandi , 5th Dist.

2019The court stated that in Foster the Court severed the judicial-fact-finding portions of R.C. 2929.14, holding that "trial courts have full discretion to impose a prison sentence within the statutory range and are no longer required to make findings or give their reasons for imposing maximum, consecutive, or more than the minimum sentences." Kalish at ¶ 1 and ¶ 11, citing Foster at ¶ 100, See also, State v. Payne , 114 Ohio St.3d 502 , 2007-Ohio-4642 , 873 N.E.2d 306 ; State v. Firouzmandi , 5th Dist.

2015Xie, supra, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 , citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). {¶19} In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the court in State v. Fish set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be weighed. 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995).

2015Xie, supra, 62 Ohio St.3d at 525 , citing State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977). {¶19} In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a guilty plea, the court in State v. Fish set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to be weighed. 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 661 N.E.2d 788 (1st Dist.1995).

2008Id., citing State v. Adams (l980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 , and Blakemore v. Blakemore (1983), 5 Ohio St.3d 217 , 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 . *Page 5 {¶ 11} This court has previously stated: In reviewing a trial court's determination of a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, appellate court's have developed a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider, including: "1) whether the state will be prejudiced by withdrawal; 2) the representation afforded to the defendant by counsel; 3)the extent of the Crim.

2007For an abuse of discretion to lie, a reviewing court must find that a trial court's ruling was "unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable." Id., quoting State v. Adams (1980), 62 Ohio St.2d 151 , 157 . {¶ 14} In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, the court in State v. Fish (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to weigh when reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea.

2022Hamilton No. C-160856, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 : In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, the court in State v. Fish (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 661 N.E.2d 788 , set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to weigh when considering a motion to withdraw a plea.

2022Hamilton No. C-160856, 2017-Ohio-8379 , 99 N.E.3d 1056 : In reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, the court in State v. Fish (1995), 104 Ohio App.3d 236 , 661 N.E.2d 788 , set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to weigh when considering a motion to withdraw a plea.

2022A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). -11- {¶ 22} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides the following non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider when determining the best interest of a child: (a) the wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care; (b) the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court; (c) the child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affe

2022A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary or unconscionable.” Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 , 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983). -11- {¶ 22} R.C. 3109.04(F)(1) provides the following non-exhaustive list of factors for the court to consider when determining the best interest of a child: (a) the wishes of the child's parents regarding the child's care; (b) the wishes and concerns of the child, as expressed to the court; (c) the child's interaction and interrelationship with the child's parents, siblings, and any other person who may significantly affe

2011(Citations omitted). {¶ 261} In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993), 510 U.S. 17, 23 , 114 S.Ct. 367, 371 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 , the United States Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors, including: {¶ 262} “[T[he frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.

2011(Citations omitted). {¶ 261} In Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. (1993), 510 U.S. 17, 23 , 114 S.Ct. 367, 371 , 126 L.Ed.2d 295 , the United States Supreme Court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors, including: {¶ 262} “[T[he frequency of the discriminatory conduct; its severity; whether it is physically threatening or humiliating, or a mere offensive utterance; and whether it unreasonably interferes with an employee's work performance.

2026Nov. 20, 1998). {¶21} In State v. McGlothan, 2014-Ohio-85 , the Supreme Court of Ohio also clarified that the “sharing of familial or financial responsibilities” does not require evidence of shared living expenses to establish cohabitation; rather, such conduct is merely one of a non-exhaustive list of factors a court may consider in determining cohabitation, none of which are, by themselves, a necessary condition for cohabitation.

2015Id. ¶ 13–14.

2025These factors include, but are 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. . . ; (d) The child's need for a legally secure permanent placement and whether that type of placement can be achieved without a grant of

2021In re A.M., –––Ohio St.3d––––, 2020-Ohio-5102 , ¶ 19.

2024“The key to this standard is whether the area zoning requirement, as applied to the property owner in question, is reasonable.” Id. {¶12} The “practical difficulties” test as set forth in Duncan incorporates the following non-exhaustive list of factors, which are to be “considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area variance has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property[:]” (1) whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; (2) whether the varian

2021“The key to this standard is whether the area zoning requirement, as applied to the property owner in question, is reasonable.” Id. {¶11} The “practical difficulties” test as set forth in Duncan provides that the following non-exhaustive list of factors “be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area variance has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property[:] 4 * * * (1) whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; (2) whether the variance is

2021Meigs No. 16CA2, 2017-Ohio-1433, ¶ 17 , State v. Lister, 4th Dist.

2020Meigs No. 16CA2, 2017-Ohio-1433, ¶ 17 . c.

2019The Ohio Supreme Court adopted the "subjective" test, finding it more reliable because it "properly emphasizes the accused's criminal culpability and not the culpability of the police officer." Id . at 191-192, 449 N.E.2d 1295 . {¶40} In applying the subjective test, the Ohio Supreme Court identified a non-exhaustive list of factors to consider: (1) the accused's previous involvement in criminal activity of the nature charged, (2) the accused's ready acquiescence to the inducements offered by the police, (3) the accused's expert knowledge in the area of the criminal activity charged, (4) the a

2019Id . at 192, 449 N.E.2d 1295 . {¶41} The trial court considered these factors in determining whether Appellant presented sufficient evidence for an entrapment instruction to be given.

2017Lister, supra, at ¶ 15 .

2015Lister, supra, at ¶ 15 . {¶9} Appellant was sentenced to 36 months on count three, robbery, R.C. 2911.02(A)(3).

2007State v. Thompson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 584 , 587-588 .

2003State v. Thompson (2001), 92 Ohio St.3d 584 , 587-88 , 752 N.E.2d 276 .

2006According to Boyd , a trial court may consider: * * * 1) whether the accused was 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 full and fair consideration was given the motion by the trial court; 5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; 6) whether the motion set forth specific reasons for withdrawal; 7) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and possible penalties; and 8) whether the accused might have a complete defense

2006According to Boyd, a trial court may consider: * * * 1) whether the accused was 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 full and fair consideration was given the motion by the trial court; 5) whether the motion was made within a reasonable time; 6) whether the motion set forth specific reasons for withdrawal; 7) whether the accused understood the nature of the charges and possible penalties; and 8) whether the accused might have a complete defense t

2003R.C. 2950.09 (B)(3); State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , 423-424 .

2002R.C. 2950.09 (B)(3); State v. Cook (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 404 , 423-424 .

2024Summit No. 26291, 2012-Ohio-4430, ¶ 25 . {¶ 19} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) instructs the trial court to consider a non-exhaustive list of factors when determining the best interest of the child, which include: (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 chi

2022These factors include but are not limited to: (1) the interrelationship of the child with others; (2) the wishes of the child; (3) the custodial history of the child; (4) the child's need for a legally secure placement and whether such a placement can be achieved without permanent custody; and (5) whether any of the factors in divisions (E)(7) to (11) apply. {¶99} The factors in R.C. 2151.414(E)(7) through (11), which are referred to in R.C. 2151.414(D)(1)(e), involve a parent's having been convicted of or pleaded guilty to [Cite as In re E.H., 2022-Ohio-1682 .] specific criminal offenses agai

2022In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2014- Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 26 . {¶38} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must consider.

2022In re B.C., 141 Ohio St.3d 55 , 2014- Ohio-4558, 21 N.E.3d 308, ¶ 26 . {¶38} R.C. 2151.414(D)(1) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors the court must consider.

2021Meigs Nos. 18CA20 & 18CA21, 2019-Ohio-4385, ¶ 12 . “ ‘To achieve Pickaway App. No. 19CA31 8 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.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2929.11. {¶16} “R.C. 2929.12 provides a non-exhaustive 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.” Id, citing Sawyer, 4th

2021Meigs Nos. 18CA20 & 18CA21, 2019-Ohio-4385, ¶ 12 . “ ‘To achieve Pickaway App. No. 19CA31 8 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.’ ” Id., quoting R.C. 2929.11. {¶16} “R.C. 2929.12 provides a non-exhaustive 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.” Id, citing Sawyer, 4th

2021It is well-established that “consideration of the appropriate factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 can be presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary.” State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 243 .

2021It is well-established that “consideration of the appropriate factors set forth in R.C. 2929.11 can be presumed unless the defendant affirmatively shows to the contrary.” State v. Clinton, 153 Ohio St.3d 422 , 2017-Ohio-9423 , 108 N.E.3d 1, ¶ 243 .