State v. Johnson, 2022 Ohio 523

Anthony E. Johnson was convicted after a 2001 bench trial of multiple aggravated robberies and kidnappings based primarily on multiple eyewitness identifications; he received an aggregate sentence of 25 years.
Beginning in 2002, Frederick Norman (inmate) provided multiple affidavits confessing to the robberies and saying Johnson was not involved; Johnson did not meet Norman until 2002.
Johnson pursued DNA testing repeatedly; in 2014 this court held DNA testing could be outcome-determinative and remanded for testing. The court-ordered testing proceeded, but key physical evidence (an unknown hair, and there were issues locating a hat/jacket/bandana) could not be located in police property records.
Multiple evidentiary hearings and searches (2016–2017) failed to locate the missing material; the trial court ultimately denied further DNA relief in 2017.
In July 2020 Johnson moved for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on Norman’s affidavits and an eyewitness-identification expert affidavit; the trial court denied leave and Johnson appealed.
The appellate court reversed: it held Johnson had shown by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing a Crim.R. 33 motion and was not barred by res judicata, and remanded with instructions to grant leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion based on newly discovered evidence (Norman's confessions) and whether Johnson was "unavoidably prevented" from filing timely	Johnson had affidavits dating to 2002 and so was not unavoidably prevented; the delay and prior filings barred relief; res judicata applies	Norman's confessions postdate trial (Johnson first met Norman in 2002); lost/missing DNA evidence prevented earlier proof; expert ID analysis newly offered; therefore Johnson was unavoidably prevented	Reversed: appellate court found clear and convincing proof Johnson was unavoidably prevented and res judicata did not bar the delayed motion; trial court must grant leave to file delayed motion for new trial (file within 7 days)
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave without first holding an evidentiary hearing when Johnson presented prima facie Crim.R. 33 evidence	Trial court's denial without hearing was appropriate under its discretion (state opposed relief)	Johnson argued he should be allowed to present Norman and an ID expert at a hearing before denial	Not addressed on merits: appellate court found the first issue dispositive and therefore declined to rule on the second assignment

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse-of-discretion standard)
State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (res judicata bars claims that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
State v. Simpkins, 117 Ohio St.3d 420 (res judicata should not be applied so rigidly that it defeats justice)
State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (res judicata promotes finality and judicial economy)
State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (definition of "unavoidably prevented" for delayed motion filing)
State v. Johnson, 14 N.E.3d 482 (remand for DNA testing where testing could be outcome-determinative)
State v. Johnson, 799 N.E.2d 650 (earlier appellate consideration of postconviction claims)