State v. Bridges
2016 Ohio 7298
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Andrey L. Bridges was convicted by a jury on November 8, 2013 of murder, felonious assault, tampering with evidence, and abuse of a corpse; sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 18.5 years. Convictions were affirmed on direct appeal (Bridges I).
- Bridges filed multiple postconviction and collateral motions raising ineffective-assistance, insufficiency/manifest-weight ("actual innocence"), prosecutorial misconduct, and other procedural claims; many were denied by the trial court and this court (Bridges II).
- On August 5, 2015 Bridges sought leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial; the trial court denied leave without a hearing. He later filed a "motion to correct error" (construed as a postconviction petition) which was also denied without a hearing.
- Bridges appealed the denials; the appellate court consolidated the appeals and limited review to the denial of leave to file a delayed new-trial motion and the denial of the motion to correct error.
- The core procedural/threshold issues were timeliness, whether Bridges was "unavoidably prevented" from filing earlier, and whether claims were barred by res judicata or otherwise fit within exceptions for successive postconviction petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bridges) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Leave to file delayed motion for new trial (Crim.R. 33) | Motion for leave should be denied because Bridges failed to show by clear and convincing proof he was "unavoidably prevented" from timely filing. | Bridges claimed ineffective assistance, actual innocence, and trial-court error (e.g., failure to appoint investigator) justify leave; relied on affidavits/exhibits. | Denied: Bridges failed to prove unavoidable prevention; claims were known or discoverable with diligence. |
| 2) Ineffective-assistance and sufficiency/weight (as basis for new trial) | These claims were either record-based or previously litigated and thus barred by res judicata. | Claims raise facts outside record and show trial counsel omissions that prevented timely filings. | Overruled: many claims were record-based or previously raised on appeal/postconviction; res judicata bars relitigation. |
| 3) Trial court’s alleged refusal to appoint private investigator | State contended any error was reviewable on direct appeal and not a basis for delayed relief. | Bridges argued trial-court refusal deprived him of due process and a fair trial. | Denied: claim could have been raised on direct appeal; not dependent on evidence outside the record. |
| 4) Motion to "correct error" (construed as postconviction petition) — successive petition requirements | Petition is successive and fails R.C. 2953.23(A) — Bridges did not show unavoidable prevention or a new retroactive right; claims also barred by res judicata. | Bridges argued conviction was void for insufficient evidence and sought relief. | Denied: petition successive, untimely, failed to meet statutory exception and was barred by res judicata. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chef Italiano Corp. v. Kent State Univ., 44 Ohio St.3d 86 (1989) (definition and requirement of a final, appealable order)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (1967) (landmark statement of res judicata in criminal context)
- State v. Reynolds, 79 Ohio St.3d 158 (1997) (postconviction relief cannot be used to re-litigate issues available on direct appeal)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (1994) (postconviction relief is collateral and limited to matters outside the record)
- State v. Gondor, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (2006) (standards for reviewing denial/grant of postconviction relief)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (1996) (trial court may deny postconviction petition without hearing when claims are barred)
- Grava v. Parkman Twp., 73 Ohio St.3d 379 (1995) (res judicata bars subsequent actions arising from the same transaction)