State v. Lundy
2020 Ohio 1585
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Markale Lundy was convicted by a jury on November 22, 2013 of aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted murder, and felonious assault; sentenced to an aggregate 22 years. The convictions were affirmed on direct appeal and the Ohio Supreme Court declined review.
- In June 2015 inmate Derrick Watson executed an affidavit saying he had witnessed the May 13, 2012 attack and that the perpetrator was not Lundy. Lundy provided Watson’s affidavit to the Ohio Innocence Project (OIP) on June 24, 2015.
- Lundy filed a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion on October 16, 2017 (about 27 months after obtaining Watson’s affidavit).
- The trial court denied leave without a hearing, concluding Lundy did not adequately explain the 27‑month delay and that the delay was unreasonable.
- The Tenth District affirmed: it applied the “unavoidably prevented” standard, found Lundy’s explanation (general OIP workflow/backlog) insufficient to excuse the delay, and held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave or in refusing to hold an evidentiary hearing. A dissent argued a hearing was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Lundy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lundy proved by clear and convincing evidence he was “unavoidably prevented” from discovering Watson’s evidence within Crim.R. 33’s 120‑day period | Watson didn’t come forward earlier; Lundy’s explanation (OIP backlog) is conclusory and does not justify the delay | Watson only revealed his observations in May–June 2015 and Lundy promptly forwarded the affidavit to OIP, so he could not have discovered it within 120 days | Court found Lundy failed to adequately explain the 27‑month delay after obtaining the affidavit and affirmed denial of leave (no abuse of discretion) |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave without an evidentiary hearing on timeliness | No hearing required; unexplained, substantial delay justified resolution without hearing | A hearing was needed to probe OIP’s processing/timeliness, prejudice, and the credibility of procedural explanations | Court held hearing was discretionary and denial without a hearing was not an abuse of discretion; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lundy, 142 Ohio St.3d 1411 (Ohio 2015) (Ohio Supreme Court declined review of the appellate affirmance)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (10th Dist. 1984) (articulates the "unavoidably prevented" standard for discovery of new evidence under Crim.R. 33)