2018 Ohio 1280
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Lawrence Landrum was convicted in 1986 of aggravated murder and aggravated burglary and sentenced to death; his convictions and sentence were repeatedly affirmed on direct and collateral review.
- In January 2017 Landrum moved for leave to file a motion for a new mitigation trial, relying on Hurst v. Florida (U.S. Supreme Court, 2016) to challenge Ohio’s capital-sentencing scheme.
- The State responded that the motion was untimely under Crim.R. 33(B) and that the claim could have been raised earlier based on Apprendi/Ring precedent and Ohio case law.
- The trial court denied Landrum’s motion on the merits, finding no inconsistency with Ohio law, and overruled his motion for leave.
- On appeal, the Fourth District affirmed, holding the motion was untimely and that Ohio’s capital sentencing differs materially from the pre-Hurst Florida scheme.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion for leave to file new trial under Crim.R. 33(B) | Landrum: Hurst announced a new, complex rule; reasonable time after Hurst to file was ~1 year; earlier Apprendi/Ring not sufficient notice | State: Motion filed long after the 14-day rule; Landrum could have raised Apprendi/Ring-based claims earlier; Belton and other Ohio decisions informed the issue sooner | Motion was untimely; Landrum not "unavoidably prevented" from filing earlier; affirm denial |
| Merits: Does Hurst render Ohio’s death-penalty statute unconstitutional? | Landrum: Ohio’s statute is "remarkably similar" to pre-Hurst Florida and suffers the same Sixth Amendment defect | State: Ohio’s scheme is materially different — guilt-phase findings make defendant death-eligible and jury unanimity required for death, so Hurst/Ring/Apprendi do not mandate relief | Even addressing merits, Ohio’s scheme passes Apprendi/Ring/Hurst framework; trial court’s denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Hurst v. Florida, 136 S. Ct. 616 (U.S. 2016) (Struck down Florida’s judge-centric capital sentencing under Sixth Amendment principles)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (Any fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584 (U.S. 2002) (Applied Apprendi to death‑penalty eligibility; judge-found aggravators unconstitutional)
- State v. Belton, 149 Ohio St.3d 165 (Ohio 2016) (Ohio sentencing scheme distinguished from Florida; weighing does not implicate Apprendi/Ring)
- State v. Roberts, 150 Ohio St.3d 47 (Ohio 2017) (Ohio Supreme Court noted Hurst could have been anticipated by Apprendi/Ring)
- State v. Landrum, 53 Ohio St.3d 107 (Ohio 1990) (Direct-appeal decision recounting trial facts and affirming conviction)