2018 Ohio 3005
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Gregory E. Bradley was convicted by a jury in 2009 of rape and gross sexual imposition and sentenced to 15 years to life and 5 years, concurrent.
- Bradley’s convictions and multiple subsequent post-conviction petitions were previously litigated and denied on appeal.
- On December 21, 2017 Bradley filed a motion for a new trial in the Van Wert Common Pleas Court, nearly eight years after the 2009 verdict.
- The trial court denied the motion on January 29, 2018, finding it untimely under Ohio Crim.R. 33.
- Bradley appealed the denial, arguing the trial court violated various provisions of Evid.R. 807 and Crim.R. 33(A)(1)–(6).
- The appellate court reviewed the denial for abuse of discretion and addressed Bradley’s contentions, ultimately affirming the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of the new-trial motion violated Crim.R. 33(A)(1) (irregularity/abuse of discretion) | Trial court properly exercised discretion; no abuse occurred | Bradley argued court violated Crim.R. 33(A)(1) denying fair trial remedy | Court held no abuse of discretion; motion properly denied |
| Whether denial violated Crim.R. 33(A)(2)–(3) (misconduct; accident/surprise) | Prosecution pointed out Crim.R. 33(C) requires supporting affidavits, which Bradley did not supply | Bradley argued those grounds applied despite no affidavits in record | Court held claims under (A)(2) and (A)(3) fail because Bradley submitted no affidavits as required |
| Whether newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) justified relief and tolling of time limit | State argued Bradley presented no newly discovered evidence and filed well outside Crim.R. 33(B) deadlines | Bradley argued new evidence supported a timely/new ground for a new trial | Court held Bradley produced no newly discovered evidence and did not meet Crim.R. 33(B) timing; denial affirmed |
| Whether Crim.R. 33(B) time limits were met or excused | State maintained the one-hundred-twenty-day rule for newly discovered evidence and 14-day rule otherwise; Bradley missed both | Bradley sought relief despite the multi-year delay | Court held the motion was untimely under Crim.R. 33(B) and no excusing circumstances were shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (trial court’s decision on a Crim.R. 33 motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion defined as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State v. Sanders, 188 Ohio App.3d 452 (2010) (motion for new trial should not be granted unless the record shows prejudice or denial of a fair trial)
- State v. Samatar, 152 Ohio App.3d 311 (2003) (discussing standards for awarding a new trial)