State v. Lenoir, 2016 Ohio 4981

In 2007 Lenoir was convicted by jury of purposeful murder with a three-year firearm specification for the 1994 killing of Patty Davis; sentence 15 years-to-life plus 3 years (aggregate 18-to-life).
Key eyewitnesses at trial included Kirby Peterson and Aisha Whatley; both initially withheld or minimized information but later identified Lenoir as the shooter.
Lenoir has repeatedly sought post-conviction relief and delayed-new-trial leave based on alleged recantations and newly discovered evidence; prior appeals rejected those attempts.
In July 2015 Lenoir filed a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion relying on an affidavit from Damon Crawford stating Whatley had told Crawford on June 30, 2015 that she had lied at trial and had actually believed Stanley Williams was the shooter.
The trial court denied leave without a hearing, finding Lenoir failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the alleged recantation within 120 days of the verdict and noting Crawford’s affidavit was hearsay and Whatley did not provide an affidavit.
The appellate court affirmed, holding Lenoir did not demonstrate unavoidable prevention or reasonable diligence and that the record did not require a hearing on the leave motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lenoir)	Held
Whether Lenoir established by clear and convincing evidence that he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering the new evidence (Whatley’s alleged recantation) within 120 days after verdict	The State argued Lenoir knew the factual ground (that Whatley may have fabricated testimony) and failed to exercise due diligence; Crawford’s affidavit is hearsay and Whatley did not recant in an affidavit	Lenoir argued he only learned of Whatley’s recantation on June 30, 2015 via Crawford and thus could not have discovered it earlier despite diligence	The court held Lenoir failed to show unavoidable prevention or reasonable diligence and denied leave; the alleged recantation was hearsay and no affidavit from Whatley supported it.
Whether Lenoir was entitled to a hearing on his motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion	The State argued the filings did not present documents that on their face show unavoidable prevention, so no hearing required	Lenoir contended Crawford’s and his own affidavits presented prima facie proof of unavoidable delay entitling him to a hearing	The court held no hearing warranted because the submitted affidavits did not clearly and convincingly establish unavoidable prevention; denial affirmed.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (standard for abuse of discretion)
Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (definition of "unavoidably prevented" for Crim.R. 33 new-evidence rule)
State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (Crim.R. 33(A)(6) newly discovered evidence framework)