extremely high standard in Ohio

45 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 2004–2025 13 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.

Followed or applied (7)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Millergreen ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 6 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2019–2025 2 sentences 2025"This sets forth an extremely high standard that is allowable only in extraordinary cases." State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-2801, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). {¶ 18} A trial court is not required to hold a hearing on every postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea. 2025"This sets forth an extremely high standard that is allowable only in extraordinary cases." State v. Miller, 2017-Ohio-2801, ¶ 15 (12th Dist.). {¶ 6} This court reviews a trial court's decision on a Crim.R. 32.1 postsentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea under an abuse-of-discretion standard.	3	6
Grace v. Kochgreen ohio · 1998 · cited in 2 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2016–2017 2 sentences 2017Grace at 579, fn. 1 , citing Ferenbaugh v. Ferenbaugh, 104 Ohio St. 556 , 559 (1922). 2016Grace at 579, fn. 1 (1998), citing Ferenbaugh v. Ferenbaugh, 104 Ohio St. 556 , 559 (1922). {¶ 19} In its entry granting summary judgment, the trial court found that in order to establish title by adverse possession against a cotenant, "[t]his court must apply the higher standard established by Ohio Supreme Court precedent - more than 'clear and convincing.'" In applying the facts of the case, the trial court found that appellants had not performed an "overt act," by clear and convincing evidence, asserting their ownership of the property to the exclusion of appellees. {¶ 20} By relying on the	2	2
State v. Price, 07ca47 (7-9-2008)green ohioctapp · 2008 · cited in 3 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2008–2025 2 sentences 2025Manifest injustice “ ‘is an extremely high standard, which permits a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.’ ” State v. Tabor, 2009-Ohio-2657 , ¶ 6 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Price, 2008-Ohio-3583, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.). 2025Manifest injustice “ ‘is an extremely high standard, which permits a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.’ ” State v. Tabor, 2009-Ohio-2657, ¶ 6 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Price, 2008-Ohio-3583, ¶ 11 (4th Dist.).	1	3
State v. Frisbiegreen ohioctapp · 2024 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 1 sentence 2025State v. Frisbie, 2024-Ohio-5523, ¶ 10 (6th Dist.).	1	1
State v. Rembertgreen ohioctapp · 2017 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2025–2025 2 sentences 2025Moreover, a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is only required if the defendant establishes “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.’ ” State v. Rembert, 2017-Ohio-1173, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Whitmore, 2008- Ohio-2226, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). {¶ 16} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which resolves the good faith, credibility, and the weight of the defendant’s assertions in support of the motion. 2025Moreover, a hearing on a motion to withdraw a guilty plea is only required if the defendant establishes “ ‘a reasonable likelihood that the withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice.’ ” State v. Rembert, 2017-Ohio-1173, ¶ 20 (10th Dist.), quoting State v. Whitmore, 2008- Ohio-2226, ¶ 11 (2d Dist.). {¶ 16} A motion to withdraw a guilty plea is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, which resolves the good faith, credibility, and the weight of the defendant’s assertions in support of the motion.	1	1
State v. Williamsgreen ohioctapp · 2022 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2023–2023 1 sentence 2023Cuyahoga No. 110941, 2022-Ohio-2043, ¶ 21 (noting manifest injustice is an extremely high standard).	1	1
Hoosier v. Hoosiergreen ohioctapp · 2014 · cited in 1 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 2017–2017 1 sentence 2017See generally Heirs, 2014-Ohio-5810 at ¶ 29 (overt act to the exclusion of cotenants still required for adverse possession claim even where those cotenants were unaware of the property). "[P]ossession of and improvements to the property are insufficient to meet the extremely high standard." Reel v. Reel, 11th Dist.	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (18)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Smith green ohio · 1977 2 sentences 2015State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977); Crim.R. 32.1. {¶10} The “manifest injustice” standard is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases. 2015State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977); Crim.R. 32.1. {¶10} The “manifest injustice” standard is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.	16	2004–2019
State v. Malone, 91439 (3-26-2009) neutral ohioctapp · 2009 2 sentences 2011“Manifest injustice” is an extremely high standard that permits the court to allow a plea withdrawal only in “extraordinary cases.” State v. Malone, Cuyahoga App. No. 91439, 2009-Ohio-1364, ¶8 . 2011The individual seeking vacation of the plea bears the burden of establishing the existence of a “manifest injustice.” Id., paragraph one of syllabus. {¶ 9} “Manifest injustice” is an extremely high standard that permits the court to allow a plea withdrawal only in “extraordinary cases.” State v. 5 Malone, Cuyahoga App. No. 91439, 2009-Ohio-1364 , citing State v. Herrera, 3d Dist.	4	2011–2016
State v. Allen, Unpublished Decision (6-22-2006) neutral ohioctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2021Cuyahoga No. 86684, 2006-Ohio-3164, ¶ 10 . 2018No. 86684, 2006-Ohio-3164, ¶ 10 . {¶ 34} A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea after the imposition of sentence " 'has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.' " Morgan at ¶ 11, quoting State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus.	3	2007–2021
State v. Peterseim green ohioctapp · 1980 2 sentences 2006State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66 , 477 N.E.2d 627 , citing State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 . {¶ 15} "Manifest injustice" is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases. 2006State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66 , citing State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 . {¶ 9} The "manifest injustice" standard is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.	3	2005–2006
State v. Caraballo green ohio · 1985 2 sentences 2006State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66 , 477 N.E.2d 627 , citing State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 , 428 N.E.2d 863 . {¶ 15} "Manifest injustice" is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases. 2006State v. Caraballo (1985), 17 Ohio St.3d 66 , citing State v. Peterseim (1980), 68 Ohio App.2d 211 . {¶ 9} The "manifest injustice" standard is an extremely high standard, which permits the withdrawal of a guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.	3	2005–2006
State v. Stumpf green ohio · 1987 2 sentences 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. 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.	2	2019–2021
State v. Smith, Unpublished Decision (3-21-2006) neutral ohioctapp · 2006 2 sentences 2008State v. Smith , Pickaway App. No. 05CA7, 2006-Ohio-1482 , at ¶ 23 . 2007No. 05CA7, 2006-Ohio-1482 , at ¶ 23 .	2	2007–2008
State ex rel. Askew v. Goldhart green ohio · 1996 1 sentence 2025Askew v. Goldhart, 75 Ohio St.3d 608 , 610 (1996). {¶ 20} Crim.R. 32.1 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 manifest injustice is defined as a ‘clear or openly unjust act.’ Manifest injustice is an extremely high standard, and a defendant may only withdraw his guilty plea in extraordinary cases.” State v. Johnson, 2012-Ohio-4866 , ¶ 9 (6th Dist.), quoting State v	1	2025–2025
State v. Smith neutral ohioctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2022Cuyahoga No. 102495, 2016-Ohio-103, ¶ 14 .	1	2022–2022
State v. Gibson, 2007-P-0021 (12-21-2007) green ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2022Portage No. 2007-P- 0021, 2007-Ohio-6926, ¶ 20 ], quoting State v. Allen, 8th Dist.	1	2022–2022
State v. Chandler green ohioctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2022It " 'is an extremely high standard, which permits a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea only in extraordinary cases.' " Id., quoting State v. Tabor, 10th Dist.	1	2022–2022
Reel v. Reel green ohioctapp · 2016 1 sentence 2017No. 2016-T- 0038, 2016-Ohio-8116, ¶ 47 .	1	2017–2017
State v. Taylor, Ca2007-12-037 (3-2-2009) neutral ohioctapp · 2009 1 sentence 2013Madison No. CA2007-12-037, 2009-Ohio-924, ¶ 12 . "'Manifest injustice' is an extremely high standard, which permits a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea only in extraordinary cases." State v. Layne, 4th Dist.	1	2013–2013
State v. Jenkins green ohio · 1984 2 sentences 2013Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993), citing State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222 , 473 N.E.2d 264 (1984). 2013Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993), citing State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222 , 473 N.E.2d 264 (1984).	1	2013–2013
Pons v. Ohio State Medical Board green ohio · 1993 2 sentences 2013Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993), citing State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222 , 473 N.E.2d 264 (1984). 2013Bd., 66 Ohio St.3d 619, 621 , 614 N.E.2d 748 (1993), citing State v. Jenkins, 15 Ohio St.3d 164, 222 , 473 N.E.2d 264 (1984).	1	2013–2013
State v. Hopkins neutral ohioctapp · 2013 1 sentence 2013Butler No. CA2012-12-246, 2013-Ohio-3674, ¶ 9 . {¶ 13} The decision of whether to grant or deny a motion to withdraw a plea of guilty under Crim.R. 32.1 is within the discretion of the trial court.	1	2013–2013
State v. Allison, Unpublished Decision (2-22-2007) neutral ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2011State v. Allison, Pickaway App. No. 06CA9, 2007-Ohio-789, at ¶7 , citing Smith at 264 . {¶9} Ultimately, the decision to grant or deny a Crim.R. 32.1 motion is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and “the good faith, credibility and weight of the movant’s assertions in support of the motion are matters to be resolved by that court.” Smith at paragraph two of the syllabus.	1	2011–2011
State v. Bell, 87727 (6-28-2007) neutral ohioctapp · 2007 1 sentence 2007Crim.R. 32.1 states: "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." *Page 6 {¶ 16} Additionally, we held: "The individual seeking vacation of the plea bears the burden of establishing the existence of a `manifest injustice.' `Manifest injustice' is an extremely high standard which permits the court to allow plea withdrawal only in `extraordinary cases.' A manifest injustice is defined as a `	1	2007–2007

Statutes the citing opinions construe

OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2903.11 (5) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.02 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2923.13 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.25 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.21 (4) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2941.145 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.08 (3) OH § Ohio Rev. Code § 2953.23 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

OH 45 (2004–2025) TX 15 (2007–2025) GA 9 (1998–2011) MS 7 (2005–2024) MI 6 (2018–2022) IL 5 (1987–2024) CA 3 (1955–2014) WV 3 (1987–2022) FL 3 (1977–2013) NJ 2 (2021–2025) AL 2 (2001–2001) WI 2 (2011–2023) VA 2 (2015–2025) CO 2 (1996–2005) PA 2 (2018–2022)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check