State v. Lawrence, 2012 Ohio 837

Lawrence was convicted of murder in 2001 and imprisoned for 18-to-life.
In 2011, Lawrence was re-sentenced to correct a sentencing entry error and appealed.
While the 2011 appeal was pending, Lawrence filed pro se a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, with supporting affidavits.
The State urged the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion due to pending appeal.
The trial court denied the motion without a hearing or stated reason.
The appellate court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court had jurisdiction and that the denial was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a delayed motion for a new trial while an appeal was pending	State argued no jurisdiction due to pending appeal	Lawrence contended the court could consider the motion	Yes, the trial court had jurisdiction and denial was improper
Whether the trial court needed findings of fact to deny a lack-of-merit motion for new trial	State claimed lack of jurisdiction foreclosed merits analysis	Lawrence argued for required findings under law	Court sustained, finding no mandatory factual findings required on lack-of-merit grounds on this record

State v. Davis, 131 Ohio St.3d 1 (2011) (trial court retains jurisdiction when issue not decided on direct appeal)
State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94 (1978) (appeals pending do not automatically strip trial court of authority to grant relief on a separate issue)
State v. Girts, 112 Ohio App.3d 539 (1997) (no need for findings of fact when grounds are not substantial)
State v. Collins v. Pokorny, 86 Ohio St.3d 70 (1999) (acknowledges limits on trial court findings in post-trial motions)