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.
7 Ohio opinions name it 2 courts 2005–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blakemore v. Blakemoregreen1 sentence2025Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219 (1983). {¶ 7} “To determine whether a trial court abused its discretion in denying a presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, we look to a number of non-exhaustive factors.” State v. Harris, 2010-Ohio-4127 , ¶ 25 (10th Dist.). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Fishgreen1 sentence2016No. 09AP-700, 2010-Ohio-903 , ¶ 10, citing State v. Fish, 104 Ohio App.3d 236, 240 (1st Dist.1995). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Adamsgreen1 sentence2005Adams , at 157. {¶ 12} In determining whether a trial court abused its discretion, we consider a number of non-exhaustive factors and decide if the trial court complied with those factors. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Wayne Ernest Barker v. United States of America, United States of America v. Wayne Ernest Barker
green
2 sentences2008Id. {¶ 13} It is well-established that in reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, we are required to weigh a number of non-exhaustive factors. 2008Id. {¶ 13} It is well-established that in reviewing a trial court's decision regarding a motion to withdraw a plea, we are required to weigh a number of non-exhaustive factors. | 2 | 2008–2008 |
State v. Johnson
green
1 sentence2017Franklin No. 15AP-946, 79 N.E.3d 1202 , 2016-Ohio-8494 , ¶ 6 ("We consider a number of non-exhaustive factors in determining whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a presentence motion to withdraw"). | 1 | 2017–2017 |
State v. Xie
green
1 sentence2017Further, "[a]bsent an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in making the ruling, its decision must be affirmed." Id. {¶ 22} In reviewing a trial court's ruling on a pre-sentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea, an appellate court considers a number of non-exhaustive factors, including: (1) whether the prosecution would be prejudiced if the plea were vacated; (2) whether the offender was represented by highly competent counsel; (3) the extent of the Crim.R. 11 hearing; (4) whether there was a full hearing on the motion to No. 16AP-42 6 withdraw the offender's guilty plea; (5) whe | 1 | 2017–2017 |
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.