2021 Ohio 3670
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background:
- In 2007 Andre Parker and Willie Deloach were shot and killed; Gray was identified by eyewitnesses and fingerprints on a car linked to him; convicted in 2008 of two counts of aggravated murder and one weapons-under-disability; sentenced to life without parole.
- Gray’s brother Rufus was implicated by some, tried separately, and acquitted; Rufus did not testify at Gray’s trial.
- Postconviction/new-trial efforts: Gray sought postconviction relief (denied as untimely/res judicata) and multiple motions for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion based on alleged newly discovered evidence (an affidavit from Curtis Davis and a purported Rufus confession).
- A 2018 hearing on Gray’s 2017 motion was held and the trial court denied leave; this denial was affirmed on appeal (Gray II) and the Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction.
- Gray filed another leave motion in 2020; the trial court again denied it as previously adjudicated and barred by res judicata; this appeal challenges that denial.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gray was unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence so as to obtain leave to file a delayed new-trial motion | Gray failed to prove unavoidable prevention by clear and convincing evidence | Gray contends Davis’s affidavit and other declarations show he could not have discovered the witness earlier | Denied — court finds Gray did not meet unavoidable-prevention standard and the claim is barred by res judicata; prior appellate rulings control |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave without an evidentiary hearing | The record and prior hearing were sufficient; issue was already litigated | Gray says documentary affidavits entitled him to an evidentiary hearing | Not reached on merits — court declined to address remaining assignments because the res judicata/dispositive ruling disposed of appeal; overall denial affirmed |
| Whether Gray’s claims are barred by res judicata | Res judicata bars claims raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal; defendant did not present extrinsic evidence to overcome it | Gray argues evidence (Davis affidavit, Rufus confession) is new and not previously available | Held — res judicata applies; Gray did not present extrinsic proof sufficient to overcome it |
| Whether Gray filed his leave motion within a reasonable time after learning of the alleged new evidence | State: Gray delayed unreasonably (Davis was at same prison in 2015; affidavit obtained in late 2017 — two-year lapse) | Gray: contends he filed promptly after learning and obtaining affidavits | Held — lapse was outside a reasonable timeframe; timeliness weighs against granting leave |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lentz, 70 Ohio St.3d 527 (1994) (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Combs, 100 Ohio App.3d 90 (1994) (extrinsic evidence required to overcome res judicata in postconviction contexts)
- State v. Pembaur, 69 Ohio St.2d 110 (1982) (procedural note on appellate decision concurrence requirements)