State v. Barnes
2018 Ohio 1585
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 8, 2013 Daniel Barnes III was tried for crimes arising from an incident in which James Martin testified he was robbed at gunpoint, forced into a car trunk, escaped, and was later assaulted; a Glock 23 with a laser was recovered near the scene.
- A jury convicted Barnes of aggravated robbery (with a gun specification), felonious assault (with a gun specification), and having weapons while under disability; kidnapping counts were dismissed.
- Barnes was sentenced, appealed, was partially successful on a prior appeal (remand for resentencing), and was resentenced; subsequent appeals and an App.R. 26(B) request were denied.
- In 2016–2017 Barnes filed (1) a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (an alleged recantation by co‑defendant James Ricket and an affidavit from witness Kayla Dickinson), and (2) motions for leave to file the delayed motion. The trial court denied leave and denied the new‑trial motion without an evidentiary hearing.
- The trial court concluded Barnes failed to show by clear and convincing proof that he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the new evidence within the 120‑day Crim.R. 33(B) window and therefore properly denied leave and declined to hold a hearing. Barnes appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Barnes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes was unavoidably prevented from discovering purported newly discovered evidence and thus entitled to leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(B) motion for new trial | The submitted affidavits/deposition do not show clear and convincing proof of unavoidable prevention or why evidence could not have been discovered within 120 days; no adequate explanation for delay | Ricket recanted and Dickinson provides witness evidence that the incident was a mutual fight, not a robbery; incarceration and lack of timely access justify delay and warrant leave | Court affirmed denial of leave: Barnes failed to show by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within Crim.R. 33(B) time limits |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing on the motion for new trial | No hearing required where the motion and supporting affidavits do not prima facie demonstrate unavoidable delay or newly discovered evidence warranting relief | A hearing was necessary to test recantation and new witness statements | Court affirmed denial without an evidentiary hearing: no prima facie showing required to trigger a hearing, so summary denial was not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for motions for new trial and definition of clear and convincing proof)
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 1992) (trial court discretion to deny evidentiary hearing on Crim.R. 33 motion)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (Ohio 1980) (abuse of discretion standard)