State v. DeVaughns
110 N.E.3d 922
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Christopher DeVaughns was convicted by a jury in 2006 of felonious assault and kidnapping for seriously injuring Lynelle Moore; he received consecutive prison terms.
- On direct appeal the court reversed only for resentencing, which after correction yielded the same sentence affirmed on reappeal.
- Over the years DeVaughns filed multiple pro se postconviction and Crim.R. 33 motions claiming newly discovered daycare records/alibi evidence, ineffective assistance regarding blood evidence, and that blood items were never DNA-tested.
- Earlier appeals rejected his alibi/new-evidence claims and found many challenges barred by res judicata or untimely; a post-conviction petition asserting blood/DNA issues was held successive and untimely and affirmed on appeal.
- In 2017 DeVaughns filed another Crim.R. 33 motion asserting his confrontation rights were violated because the source of blood evidence was not identified; the trial court denied it as untimely and barred by res judicata, and this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Crim.R. 33 motion | State: motion filed >10 years after verdict and not filed on newly discovered evidence; thus untimely | DeVaughns: late because of newly revealed or unaddressed blood/DNA issues preventing timely filing | Court: motion untimely; defendant failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing; denial proper |
| Res judicata bar | State: blood evidence and related claims were or could have been raised earlier on direct appeal/post-conviction | DeVaughns: claims are new and require new proceedings (Confrontation/DNA) | Court: claims barred by res judicata due to prior appeals and prior opportunities to raise them |
| Confrontation/DNA challenge to blood evidence | DeVaughns: failure to identify source of blood deprived him of confrontation rights and trial fairness | State: evidence issue already known/raised; procedural bars apply | Court: merits not reached; procedural defaults (untimeliness, res judicata) control |
| Challenge to prior appellate ruling on alibi/daycare | DeVaughns: disputes this court’s prior finding that brief absence to pick up daughter did not exonerate him | State: prior decision is law of the case | Court: issue not properly before this court; law of the case binds; assignment overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiebel v. Mitchel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 33 rulings; abuse of discretion)
- Matthews v. State, 81 Ohio St.3d 375 (Ohio 1998) (Crim.R. 33 procedural context and standards)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Walden v. State, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (definition of "unavoidably prevented" for delayed motions)
Conclusion: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of DeVaughns' Crim.R.33 motion because it was untimely, DeVaughns failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from filing timely, and his claims were barred by res judicata; his challenge to a prior appellate ruling was rejected as law of the case.