State v. Davis, 2013 Ohio 846

Davis was convicted in 1994 of aggravated murder and felonious assault for Marsha Blakely's murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Davis previously pursued delayed motions for a new trial in 1998, which were denied and affirmed on appeal for failure to show unavoidable delay.
Approximately fourteen years later, Davis sought leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, attaching new-evidence materials (records, investigative report, and Avery affidavit recantation).
The trial court denied the motion for leave; Davis appealed arguing denial without a hearing violated Crim.R. 33 and due process.
The appellate court reviewed whether Davis provided clear and convincing proof of unavoidable delay and whether a hearing was warranted, upholding the trial court's decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying leave without a hearing	Davis argues unavoidably prevented discovery warranted a hearing	Davis failed to show unavoidably prevented discovery or reasonable delay	No abuse; no hearing required

State v. Holmes, 9th Dist. No. 05CA008711, 2006-Ohio-1310 (Ohio 2006) (abuse of discretion standard for leave motions)
State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (syllabus on determining leave for delayed motions)
State v. Starling, 2002-Ohio-3683 (Ohio 2002) (discretion in hearing decisions for delay motions)
State v. Hensley, 12th Dist. CA2002-01-002, 2002-Ohio-3494 (Ohio 2002) (unavoidable delay standard considerations)
State v. Covender, 9th Dist. No. 07CA009228, 2008-Ohio-1453 (Ohio 2008) (clear and convincing proof of unavoidable delay)
State v. Mathis, 134 Ohio App.3d 77 (Ohio 1999) (timeliness and reasonableness in delay motions)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard defined)