2019 Ohio 1870
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Phillip Jones was convicted of rape and murder and sentenced to death; Ohio Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence in State v. Jones (Jones I).
- Jones filed a postconviction petition; the trial court denied it, and appeals produced further decisions in this Court (Jones II, Jones III) addressing ineffective assistance claims.
- While Jones III (appeal of denial of postconviction relief) was pending, Jones filed a Crim.R. 33 motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new mitigation trial based on Hurst v. Florida.
- The trial court denied Jones’ motion for leave, finding the Hurst-based claim lacked merit under Ohio decisions distinguishing Ohio’s capital scheme from Florida’s.
- Jones appealed; the Ninth District considered (sua sponte) whether the trial court had jurisdiction to rule while Jones III was pending and ultimately affirmed the trial court’s denial for abuse-of-discretion reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jones) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court lost jurisdiction to rule on Crim.R. 33 leave motion while a separate appeal (Jones III) was pending | Trial court lacked jurisdiction during the pendency of Jones III and any ruling is void | Trial court retained jurisdiction over post-trial Crim.R. 33 matters not inconsistent with the pending appeal | Court held trial court retained jurisdiction because Jones III was collateral (postconviction) and Crim.R. 33 motions are distinct; jurisdictional challenge rejected |
| Whether trial court erred by denying leave without explicit findings that Jones was "unavoidably prevented" under Crim.R. 33(B) | Court should have made findings whether Jones was unavoidably prevented from filing within 14 days; failure requires remand or construed as concession | Trial court implicitly addressed timeliness by rejecting the Hurst basis as meritless; Crim.R. 33 does not mandate findings of fact and conclusions of law | Court affirmed: denial reviewed for abuse of discretion; remand unnecessary because either denial of leave or merits denial would be correct |
| Whether Hurst v. Florida entitles Jones to a new mitigation trial under Ohio law | Hurst rendered the Florida scheme unconstitutional and supports a new mitigation trial for Jones | Ohio Supreme Court decisions distinguish Ohio’s scheme from Florida’s and reject Hurst-based relief in Ohio cases | Court held Hurst-based claim lacked merit under Ohio precedent (Belton, Mason); trial court did not abuse discretion in denying relief |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 135 Ohio St.3d 10 (Ohio 2012) (affirming convictions and death sentence)
- State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio capital scheme distinguished from Florida post-Hurst)
- State v. Mason, 153 Ohio St.3d 476 (Ohio 2018) (reaffirming that Ohio’s sentencing scheme survives Hurst challenge)
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (invalidating Florida’s capital sentencing scheme for failing to require jury factfinding)