2018 Ohio 3463
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Antonio M. Jones was indicted and convicted for murder, felony murder (merged with murder), tampering with evidence, and having a weapon while under disability; multiple firearm and repeat-violent-offender specifications were found true.
- Jones was sentenced to an aggregate term of 33 years to life; this court previously affirmed his convictions on direct appeal.
- Jones filed a second motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, arguing the trial court failed to instruct the jury on voluntary and involuntary manslaughter as lesser-included offenses of murder.
- The trial court denied leave to file the delayed motion; Jones appealed that denial.
- The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s denial for abuse of discretion and considered Crim.R. 33(B)’s requirements for showing clear and convincing proof of being unavoidably prevented from timely filing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jones) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred in denying leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial based on omitted lesser-included-offense instructions | Denial was proper because Jones failed to show by clear and convincing proof that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing; res judicata bars relitigation | Trial court should have instructed on voluntary/involuntary manslaughter; refusal violated constitutional rights and warranted a delayed new-trial motion | Affirmed: no clear-and-convincing proof of unavoidable prevention; res judicata bars the claim; jury-instruction error is legal error, not fraud; denial not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse-of-discretion standard)
- In re Estate of Holycross, 112 Ohio St.3d 203 (2007) (legal ignorance is not an excuse; persons are presumed to know the law)
- State v. Wine, 140 Ohio St.3d 409 (2014) (whether an instruction is required depends on the trial evidence)
- State v. Saxon, 109 Ohio St.3d 176 (2006) (res judicata bars issues raised or that could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Pinkney, 36 Ohio St.3d 190 (1988) (reaffirms the presumption that all persons know the law)