State v. Clyde
2019 Ohio 302
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Jeffrey Clyde was convicted after a bench trial of multiple sex-related offenses involving his minor daughter, K.T.; some convictions were vacated on earlier appeal and he was resentenced to 18 years.
- Postconviction relief for ineffective assistance was previously denied and affirmed on appeal.
- On January 10, 2017, K.T. executed an affidavit saying she fabricated allegations to leave home and that she tried to tell the prosecutor before trial but was threatened; she also claimed promises from Children’s Services and the prosecutor were not kept.
- Clyde filed a motion (Feb. 1, 2018) for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) new-trial motion based on K.T.’s affidavit and a 2011 child-services letter; the 2011 letter had been placed in the trial record earlier.
- The state opposed, arguing the information was not newly discovered and the letter was already in the record; the trial court summarily denied leave without a hearing.
- Clyde appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion and should have held a hearing; the appellate court affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Clyde was unavoidably prevented from discovering the alleged new evidence so as to permit leave for a delayed Crim.R. 33(A)(6) motion | K.T.’s 2017 affidavit and the 2011 letter constitute newly discovered evidence that Clyde could not have discovered with reasonable diligence within 120 days | The letter was already in the record; K.T.’s affidavit does not present facts unknown at trial and gives no reason it could not have been produced earlier | Denied: Clyde failed to show by clear and convincing proof he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave without a hearing | Clyde asserted documents supported unavoidable prevention and warranted a hearing | State argued documents did not, and trial testimony already covered the prosecutor–K.T. interaction | Denied: no hearing required because submitted documents did not on their face establish unavoidable prevention |
| Whether K.T.’s affidavit is a true recantation sufficient to warrant a new trial | Affidavit purports she fabricated accusations and was coerced by prosecutor threats | Court found affidavit described the prosecutor interaction already testified to at trial and did not supply new facts or explain delay in producing affidavit | Denied: affidavit is not newly discovered recantation and gives no explanation for untimely production |
| Whether Clyde’s delay in filing for leave was reasonable | Clyde cited prison restrictions on legal work time | State argued and court found over one-year delay (from Jan 2017 affidavit to Feb 2018 filing) unreasonable | Denied: delay was unreasonable and unexplained; supports denial of leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" for delayed new-trial motions)