State v. Baskerville
2019 Ohio 3639
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Deandre Baskerville was convicted by a jury in 2016 of two counts of murder, one count of felonious assault, and one count of carrying a concealed weapon; he was sentenced to 15 years to life.
- This Court previously affirmed his convictions on direct appeal. (State v. Baskerville, Ninth Dist.)
- On November 27, 2018, Baskerville filed a pro se postconviction petition and an untimely motion for a new trial, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel and selective prosecution based on race (citing post‑sentencing newspaper articles).
- The trial court dismissed the postconviction petition as untimely and denied leave for the untimely motion for a new trial under Crim.R. 33.
- Baskerville appealed the denials; the Ninth District affirmed, holding the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the untimely postconviction petition and that Baskerville did not obtain required leave for an untimely new‑trial motion.
Issues
| Issue | Baskerville's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction to hear untimely postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21/2953.23 | His petition raised constitutional claims (ineffective assistance, selective prosecution) deserving review despite lateness | Petition was filed more than 365 days after the transcript in the direct appeal; Baskerville did not satisfy R.C. 2953.23(A) to permit an untimely petition | Court: Petition untimely; Baskerville did not meet R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) or (b); trial court lacked jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed |
| Standard to excuse filing deadline for postconviction relief (R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a)) | He argued newly discovered facts (newspaper articles) and constitutional error justify consideration | State maintained he failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering facts or that a new retroactive right applies | Court: Must show unavoidable prevention or new retroactive right; Baskerville did not make that showing |
| Burden under R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(b) (clear and convincing evidence of likely innocence but for constitutional error) | Argued selective prosecution/inadequate counsel meant no reasonable factfinder would convict | State argued no clear and convincing evidence was presented to undermine conviction | Court: Baskerville failed to meet the heavy clear‑and‑convincing showing; requirement unmet |
| Leave for untimely motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(B) | He sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence (post‑sentence news articles) and ineffective assistance but did not file within 14 days | State argued he did not obtain the initial leave/order showing unavoidable prevention required to file an untimely motion | Court: Crim.R. 33 requires demonstrating unavoidable prevention before filing an untimely motion; Baskerville did not obtain leave; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying the untimely motion |
Key Cases Cited
- The opinion primarily cites unpublished/slip appellate decisions and statutory provisions. No authorities cited in the opinion have official reporter citations suitable for Bluebook listing.