2019 Ohio 4073
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Howard Boddie Jr. was convicted in 2010; he later filed a new-trial motion partly based on the main witness's alleged recantation.
- Trial court denied the new-trial motion by entry dated October 15, 2018.
- Boddie filed a notice of appeal on November 15, 2018; the appellate court dismissed it as one day late.
- Boddie moved for reconsideration in the appellate court and then filed a Civ.R. 60(B) motion in the trial court, claiming he did not receive timely notice of the new-trial denial and seeking relief to enable appellate review.
- Trial court denied the Civ.R. 60(B) motion (stating Rule 60 applies only to civil cases); Boddie appealed that denial.
- The Tenth District affirmed, holding Civ.R. 60(B) was not a proper means to reset the appellate clock and Boddie failed to show a meritorious claim in support of 60(B) relief.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Boddie's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did the trial court err in denying Civ.R. 60(B) relief based on alleged late notice of the new-trial denial? | 60(B) relief inappropriate; no meritorious claim shown to warrant relief. | He did not receive official notice timely and was prejudiced; sought 60(B) relief to remedy. | Denial affirmed: focused on timing alone and no meritorious claim; 60(B) relief not warranted. |
| 2. Can Civ.R. 60(B) be applied in a criminal case here (via Crim.R. 57)? | Even if Civ.R. 60(B) can apply through Crim.R. 57 when no criminal rule covers the issue, it does not permit a delayed appeal. | Civ.R. 60(B) should be available to provide relief from judgment/entry impact. | Court: Crim.R.57 can make Civ.R.60 available in some circumstances, but that does not allow extending appeal time; trial court's blanket statement was overstated but outcome stands. |
| 3. May Civ.R. 60(B) be used to "reset the clock" and obtain a delayed appeal? | Civ.R.60(B) cannot substitute for a timely appeal or extend appeal deadlines; App.R.5 is the proper vehicle for delayed appeals. | Sought to use 60(B) to permit appellate review after missing the deadline. | Held: 60(B) cannot be used to perfect or extend the time for appeal; affirmed. |
| 4. Were the merits of the new-trial motion (recantation) reviewable via this 60(B) motion? | Merits were not presented in the 60(B) motion; 60(B) here challenged only notice/timing. | Argues the recantation warrants a new trial on the merits. | Court limited review to issues raised in the 60(B) motion, declined to address new-trial merits, and overruled those assignments. |
Key Cases Cited
- GTE Automatic Elec., Inc. v. ARC Industries, 47 Ohio St.2d 146 (1976) (Civ.R. 60(B) requires showing a meritorious claim or defense for relief).
- Key v. Mitchell, 81 Ohio St.3d 89 (1998) (Civ.R. 60(B) cannot substitute for a timely appeal or extend appeal time).
- State ex rel. Richard v. Cuyahoga Cty. Commrs., 89 Ohio St.3d 205 (2000) (same principle: Civ.R.60(B) not vehicle to obtain delayed appeal).
- State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (Civil rules may apply in criminal cases through Crim.R.57 when no criminal rule governs).