Ohio Court of Appeals· 2/28/2025

State v. Brand

Citations

2025 Ohio 669

Syllabus

CRIM.R. 33(B) — UNAVOIDABLE PREVENTION: The common pleas court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new-trial motion based on irregularity in the proceedings and newly discovered evidence where defendant could not demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds upon which he now relies to support his new-trial motion.

Judges: Kinsley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2 cases in this archive cite this case.

State v. Rainey
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2025-07-25· cited 1×
State v. Birt
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2026-06-15

Cites

10 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Brady v. Maryland
Supreme Court· 1963-05-13· cited 33,902×
Robert Glen Coe, Petitioner-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Ricky Bell, Warden, Respondent-Appellant/cross-Appellee
Sixth Circuit· 1999-02-23· cited 698×
State v. Hatton
Ohio Supreme Court· 2022-11-10· cited 113×
Clermont Cty. Transp. Improvement Dist. v. Gator Milford, L.L.C. (Slip Opinion)
Ohio Supreme Court· 2015-01-29· cited 42×
State v. Cashin
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2017-12-28· cited 30×
State v. McKnight
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2021-08-03· cited 11×
State v. Brand
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2016-10-26· cited 8×
State v. Howard
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-06-24· cited 5×
State v. Brand
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2022-04-08· cited 4×
State v. Brand
Ohio Court of Appeals· 2023-09-20· cited 2×

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.