State v. Hill

Citations

• 2019 Ohio 365

Syllabus

NEW TRIAL–APPELLATE REVIEW/CRIMINAL: The common pleas court abused its discretion in overruling without an evidentiary hearing that part of defendant's Crim.R. 33(A)(2) and (A)(6) motion seeking a new trial on Brady and actual-innocence grounds, but not the part of the motion seeking a new trial on ineffective-counsel grounds: Crim.R. 33 contemplates a hearing, the nature of which is discretionary with the court the court could not, consistent with Calhoun, have decided the actual-innocence claim in a \paper hearing\ and the new-trial motion, on its face, demonstrated substantive grounds for relief on the Brady and actual-innocence claims, but not on the ineffective-counsel claim. In the appeal from the common pleas court's judgment overruling on the merits defendant's Crim.R. 33(A)(2) and (A)(6) motion for a new trial, App.R. 3(C) precluded the state from arguing in defense of that judgment that the grounds for relief presented in the motion were time-barred under Crim.R. 33(B), because the common pleas court had granted defendant's Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file the new-trial motion, and the state did not, as App.R. 3(C)(1) required, file a cross-appeal.