State v. Jackson
2019 Ohio 4893
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Emmanuel Jackson was convicted in 2017 of aggravated robbery with a repeat-violent-offender specification and sentenced to 11 years; this court affirmed his conviction in a prior appeal (Jackson I).
- In Jackson I the court criticized the prosecution’s conditioned plea deals with codefendants Anthony Palmentera and Bradley Lease for impairing Jackson’s right to compulsory process, but found reversible error absent because Jackson did not explain what testimony the codefendants would have given.
- About one year after the conviction, Jackson sought leave to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) new-trial motion outside the 120-day window, based on a newly obtained affidavit from Palmentera stating he did not know Jackson and that Jackson was not involved in the robbery.
- The trial court denied leave, finding Jackson failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the affidavit within 120 days and that the affidavit’s substance was not newly discovered because its facts were already known at trial.
- Jackson appealed the denial of leave and the trial court’s refusal to hold a hearing; the appellate court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palmentera’s affidavit is "new evidence" under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | Affidavit not new in substance; Jackson already knew the facts from his own police interview and trial evidence | Affidavit is new and corroborates Jackson, curing the deficiency identified in Jackson I | Although the affidavit document is new, its content was known at trial; not "new evidence" for Crim.R. 33 purposes and cannot support untimely filing |
| Whether a hearing on leave was required (did filings on their face show unavoidable delay) | No hearing: Jackson’s filings did not show unavoidable delay by clear and convincing proof | Hearing required because affidavit supports claim he was prevented from obtaining codefendant’s testimony | No hearing required. Jackson failed to show on the face of filings that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence; trial court did not abuse its discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hoover-Moore, 50 N.E.3d 1010 (2015) (unavoidable-delay standard for filing new-trial motions requires clear and convincing proof)
- State v. Walden, 483 N.E.2d 859 (10th Dist. 1984) (defining "unavoidably prevented" for new-trial timing)
- State v. McConnell, 869 N.E.2d 77 (2007) (documents that on their face show unavoidable delay require a hearing)