State v. Hill

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 102

Syllabus

Motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial Crim.R. 33 newly discovered evidence unavoidably prevented unreasonable delay reasonable diligence res judicata and hearing on motion for leave. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied defendant-appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial because the court found, by clear and convincing evidence, that (1) the affidavit of Taylor was not timely brought to the court's attention, (2) there was no evidence that defendant-appellant was unavoidably delayed from obtaining Potts's and McCollum's affidavits, and (3) McCollum's affidavit was barred by res judicata. Further, it was within the trial court's discretion to not hold a hearing on defendant-appellant's motion for leave. Because the trial court denied defendant-appellant's motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, the court could not rule on defendant-appellant's motion for new trial. The merits of a motion for new trial are decided after the trial court grants movant leave to file a delayed motion for new trial. Where this court determined in a prior appeal that defendant-appellant was not unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for new trial — based upon an alleged Brady violation — res judicata barred him from raising this issue in a subsequent appeal.