State v. Blalock
2014 Ohio 934
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Marcus Blalock was convicted in 2001 of murder, aggravated robbery, kidnapping and related offenses based principally on the testimony of co-defendant/prosecution witness Arketa Willis; no physical evidence tied Blalock to the killing.
- Willis testified that Blalock participated in moving Howard Rose’s body; she later received a plea deal and testified against Blalock. Co-defendants McCauley and Johnson either did not testify at Blalock’s trial or gave statements implicating Willis as shooter.
- After conviction, Blalock pursued multiple post-trial remedies. New materials surfaced over time: (a) jail telephone recordings and letters between Willis and McCauley suggesting Willis lied and may have shot Rose; (b) a later affidavit from inmate Shannon Drake corroborating that McCauley said Willis was the killer and that Willis framed Blalock.
- Blalock repeatedly sought leave to file a Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion (after the 120-day period) and/or a postconviction petition; the trial court denied relief without an evidentiary hearing, citing res judicata. Federal habeas courts and the Sixth Circuit reviewed related claims and noted the new evidence but denied habeas relief.
- On appeal from the trial court’s denial of leave for a new trial/postconviction petition based on the 2013 Drake affidavit, the Ohio Eighth District reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing on whether Blalock was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Blalock's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court must hold a hearing on leave to file an untimely Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion (unavoidable delay) | The state argued Blalock’s claims were repetitive/res judicata and that he knew Willis and could have discovered evidence earlier | Drake's affidavit on its face showed the evidence could not have been discovered within 120 days, so Blalock was entitled to a hearing on unavoidable delay | Court: Hearing required; trial court abused discretion by ruling merits without first determining unavoidable delay |
| Whether Drake affidavit/newly discovered evidence is barred by res judicata | State: Issue of Willis being the shooter already litigated in prior motions and appeals; deny as res judicata | Blalock: New affidavit presents evidence unavailable earlier that undermines verdict; res judicata would be unjust given lingering doubt | Court: Not clear res judicata should apply; application may work an injustice here — remanded for hearing on unavoidable delay rather than dismissal on res judicata grounds |
| Whether Blalock could obtain postconviction relief based on perjured testimony absent proof prosecution knew of perjury | State: No showing that prosecution knew of alleged perjury, so postconviction relief inappropriate under R.C. 2953.21 | Blalock: New evidence shows Willis perjured herself; sought leave to file postconviction petition | Court: Postconviction relief requires proof of a constitutional violation; absent allegation/proof the state knew of perjury, remedy is by Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion — denial of leave to file postconviction petition was proper |
| Whether failure to hold a hearing was harmless error | State: Prior decisions (including federal habeas) rejected relief; thus any error was harmless | Blalock: New evidence is material and could have affected outcome; error not harmless | Court: Error not harmless given the materiality of the new evidence; remanded for hearing on unavoidable delay |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review of Crim.R. 33 motions)
- State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (Ohio 2008) (res judicata should not be applied so rigidly as to work an injustice)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (postconviction relief statute: collateral attack to redress constitutional violations)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (defendant entitled to a hearing on unavoidable delay when documents on their face support the claim)