State v. Hatton, 2013 Ohio 475

Hatton was convicted in 1997 of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, felonious assault, rape, and theft, with consecutive sentences totaling 39 years; conviction affirmed in Hatton I (1999).
In 2011, Hatton moved for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence, namely letters from co-conspirator Dunn exonerating Hatton and alleging coercion by a detective.
Dunn letters allegedly mailed December 7, 2010; Hatton did not receive them until December 2010, prompting August 2011 request for leave.
The letters claimed Dunn told the truth, contradicted earlier testimony, and described threats and false statements; Carrie Wood of the Ohio Innocence Project supplied related affidavits.
The trial court denied leave on the grounds Hatton waited about a year after discovering the evidence; the denial prompted this appeal.
Appellate court reversed, holding Pinkerman governs and requires granting leave when the defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within 120 days, regardless of a delay in seeking leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying leave to file a new-trial motion	Hatton	State	Abused; leave should have been granted
Whether Pinkerman controls the standard for leave to file	Hatton	State	Pinkerman governs; grant leave; no departure to reasonable-time standard

State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158 (1993) (no time limit for filing a motion for leave to file a new-trial motion; unavoidably prevented discovery suffices)