has adopted rule in Ohio

2000For purposes of determining abuse of discretion in such a case, this court has adopted the rule first set forth by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 22 O.O.3d 341 , 428 N.E.2d 863 , summarized in a headnote as follows: "A trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw: (1) where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a c

1999For purposes of determining abuse of discretion in such a case, this court has adopted the rule first set forth by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 22 O.O.3d 341 , 428 N.E.2d 863 , summarized in a headnote as follows: "A trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw: (1) where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a c

2000For purposes of determining abuse of discretion in such a case, this court has adopted the rule first set forth by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 22 O.O.3d 341 , 428 N.E.2d 863 , summarized in a headnote as follows: "A trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw: (1) where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a c

2000For purposes of determining abuse of discretion in such a case, this court has adopted the rule first set forth by the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County in State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 22 O.O.3d 341 , 428 N.E.2d 863 , summarized in a headnote as follows: "A trial court does not abuse its discretion in overruling a motion to withdraw: (1) where the accused is represented by highly competent counsel, (2) where the accused was afforded a full hearing, pursuant to Crim.R. 11, before he entered the plea, (3) when, after the motion to withdraw is filed, the accused is given a c

2024“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 10} When evaluating a defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this court has adopted the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 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.).

2024“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 10} When evaluating a defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this court has adopted the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 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.).

2024“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 10} When evaluating a defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this court has adopted the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 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.).

2024“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 10} When evaluating a defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this court has adopted the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 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.).

2024“A decision is unreasonable if there is no sound reasoning process that would support that decision.” Id. {¶ 10} When evaluating a defendant’s claim that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling a presentence motion to withdraw a plea, this court has adopted the factors set forth in State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 , 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.).

2014Id. {¶ 35} It is in that context—the filing and hearing of a valuation complaint—that a sale price is or is not presumed to be recent to the tax-lien date. 13 SUPREME COURT OF OHIO Neither the former nor the current version of R.C. 5713.03 calls for a presumption, but the court has adopted the presumption as an appropriate procedural measure to achieve the legislative aim of the statute: that a sale price be adopted as the property value whenever appropriate.

2014Consecutive Sentences {¶36} Under the seventh assignment of error, Rembert claims the trial court fails to make appropriate findings before imposing consecutive sentences for his two offenses. {¶37} When reviewing consecutive sentences, this court has adopted the standard set forth in State v. Venes, 2013-Ohio-1891 , 992 N.E.2d 453 , ¶ 8-10 (8th Dist.).

2011Id. {¶30} This court has adopted factors to weigh in 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 the motion to withdraw; (6) whether the trial court gave full and fair consideration to the motion; (7) whether the timing of the motion was reasonable; (8) the reasons for the motion; and (9) whether the accu

2004State v. Bush (2002), 96 Ohio St.3d 235 ; State v. Tabbaa, Cuyahoga App. No. 81410, 2003-Ohio-299 . 2 In Tabbaa , this court found that despite the trial court's failure to recite R.C. 2943.031 language, the eleven and one-half year delay between the appellant's plea and motion to vacate was unreasonable.

1991This court has adopted the rule for proof of lost profits set forth in Kinetico, Inc. v. Independent Ohio Nail Co. (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 26 , 19 OBR 92, 482 N.E.2d 1345 : “Proof of lost profits must be reasonably certain and may not be speculative.

1991This court has adopted the rule for proof of lost profits set forth in Kinetico, Inc. v. Independent Ohio Nail Co. (1984), 19 Ohio App.3d 26 , 19 OBR 92, 482 N.E.2d 1345 : “Proof of lost profits must be reasonably certain and may not be speculative.