State v. Hillman, 2020 Ohio 5597

Robert L. Hillman represented himself at trial and was convicted in 2014 of multiple burglaries and related offenses in two Franklin County cases and sentenced to 18 years.
He filed a timely Crim.R. 33 motion after trial (denying prosecutorial/witness misconduct claims); his direct appeal was affirmed and Ohio Supreme Court review was declined.
Hillman pursued multiple postconviction and collateral actions (including an R.C. 2935.09 accusation against Officer Larrison); those efforts were unsuccessful.
In February 2020 (about six years after conviction and years after he obtained a police 911/event information sheet), Hillman sought leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion asserting newly discovered evidence based on a 911/event information sheet used at trial.
The trial court denied leave in both cases (finding the asserted evidence pertained only to the East Town Street count and was not properly shown to be newly discovered or unavoidably undiscoverable).
The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion: Hillman’s affidavits failed to show unavoidable prevention or a reasonable prompt filing after discovery, and trial courts are not required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law under Crim.R. 33.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court was required to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion	Trial court must issue findings to explain rejection of Hillman’s affidavits and to create a final appealable order	No statutory duty under Crim.R. 33 requires findings; denial may be summary	Court: No duty to issue findings; Collins controls; denial is proper without findings
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a hearing and leave to file a delayed new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence (911 sheet)	Hillman: affidavits entitled him to a hearing because evidence shows Officer Larrison falsely testified and Hillman was unavoidably prevented from discovering it	Trial court: affidavits do not show unavoidable prevention; Hillman knew or could have obtained the 911 sheet earlier and waited years to seek leave	Court: Affidavits did not, on their face, show unavoidable prevention or prompt filing after discovery; no abuse of discretion in denying hearing or leave

State ex rel. Collins v. Pokorny, 86 Ohio St.3d 70 (1999) (trial court has no duty to issue findings of fact or conclusions of law when denying a Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial)
State v. Hillman, 141 Ohio St.3d 1475 (2015) (Ohio Supreme Court disposition relating to Hillman’s direct-appeal proceedings)