State v. Henry
2017 Ohio 7426
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anjuan Henry was convicted in 2003 of possession of crack cocaine with a major-drug-offender finding and sentenced to 17 years after earlier proceedings and an appeal/remand.
- In April–June 2016 Henry filed a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion, attaching affidavits that his ex-fiancée Erica Bibbs had an affair with his 2003 trial attorney and only revealed it to him in 2016.
- Henry also filed a Crim.R. 33(A)(1) new-trial motion alleging counsel conflict of interest and cited disciplinary authority; the State argued the usual Strickland/actual-conflict standard.
- The trial court denied Henry’s motion for a new trial and denied his motion for leave to file a delayed new-trial motion without holding an evidentiary hearing or explaining credibility findings.
- Henry appealed; the appellate court addressed whether Henry was entitled to a hearing on his motion for leave (i.e., whether his affidavits, if credible, showed he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Henry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Henry was unavoidably prevented from discovering the alleged attorney–affair evidence so as to obtain leave to file a delayed new-trial motion under Crim.R. 33(B) | The State opposed relief and urged that to show conflict-based ineffective assistance Henry must show an actual conflict that adversely affected counsel | Henry argued his affidavits (his and Bibbs’) show he only learned of the affair in 2016 and thus was unavoidably prevented from timely filing a new-trial motion | Court reversed and remanded: trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion for leave without assessing credibility or holding a hearing; remand for the trial court to evaluate affidavits under Calhoun factors |
| Whether the trial court could resolve the merits of the Crim.R. 33(A)(1) new-trial motion before ruling on leave under Crim.R. 33(B) | The State argued procedural and substantive defenses (including standard for conflict claims) | Henry sought immediate consideration of his new-trial claim based on alleged conflict | Court declined to address the merits as premature; overruled that assignment of error pending resolution of leave on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (factors and requirement that a court explain credibility determinations for affidavits in collateral/postconviction filings)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (2007) (defendant entitled to hearing on motion for leave if affidavits on their face support unavoidable prevention)
- Disciplinary Counsel v. Owen, 142 Ohio St.3d 323 (2014) (disciplinary decision cited by defendant regarding attorney misconduct)
- State v. Moore, 99 Ohio App.3d 748 (1994) (discussion of assessing affidavit credibility and factors suggesting fabricated or interested affidavits)