State v. Crawford, 2016 Ohio 3030

David Crawford was convicted in 2007 of aggravated murder and tampering with evidence; his direct appeals were unsuccessful, but in 2009 this court ordered resentencing and the trial court entered a revised judgment in 2010; he did not appeal the 2010 judgment.
In April 2015 Crawford filed a "Motion to Preserve Evidence" in the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court, asking law enforcement to preserve and catalog physical evidence from his case for expert review and potential exculpatory material.
The common pleas court overruled Crawford’s motion; Crawford appealed that order to this court.
The State moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the order was not a reviewable final order and Crawford’s motion was not a proper postconviction filing.
The court analyzed appellate jurisdiction (Ohio Constitution Article IV, §3(B)(2); R.C. 2953.02/2953.08/2953.21) and final-order rules (R.C. 2505.02/2505.03), and examined whether the motion should be treated as a postconviction petition or a provisional remedy.
The court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the common pleas court’s order and granted the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court of appeals has jurisdiction to review the trial court’s order overruling Crawford’s Motion to Preserve Evidence	The State: the order is not a final, appealable order; jurisdiction is lacking under R.C. 2953 and R.C. 2505	Crawford: seeks review of trial court’s refusal to order preservation of potentially exculpatory evidence (argues it implicates substantial due-process rights)	Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction — the order is not reviewable under the cited appellate statutes
Whether Crawford’s motion should be treated as a postconviction petition (to allow review/discovery)	The State: the motion was not filed as a postconviction petition and postconviction statutes do not permit initial discovery; thus it is not cognizable as postconviction relief	Crawford: framed motion as preliminary to postconviction discovery and relief based on possibly undisclosed exculpatory evidence	Court: motion was not a postconviction petition under R.C. 2953.21 and thus not reviewable under postconviction appeal statutes

California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479 (establishes Due Process duty to preserve constitutionally material evidence)
State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (allows courts to recast motions into appropriate categories for disposition)
State ex rel. Love v. Cuyahoga Cty. Prosecutor’s Office, 87 Ohio St.3d 158 (postconviction statutes do not allow discovery in initial stages)