State v. Mackey, 106 N.E.3d 241

Robert L. Mackey was convicted in 1998 of multiple drug- and weapons-related offenses and sentenced to lengthy prison terms; he was resentenced in 2011 to an aggregate 28-year term.
In March 2014, over 15 years after conviction, Mackey filed an R.C. 2953.21 petition for post-conviction relief alleging trial witnesses Cairo Buggs and Heather Peterson recanted their trial testimony.
Attached to the petition were affidavits in which Buggs and Peterson disavowed their trial testimony (Buggs claiming the contraband was his and that he cooperated with police; Peterson claiming she was part of a police-controlled buy and did not identify Mackey).
The trial court initially dismissed the petition as untimely; this court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, concluding Mackey’s affidavit sufficiently alleged he was “unavoidably prevented” from earlier discovery.
After an evidentiary hearing (testimony by Mackey, Buggs, Peterson, and Mackey’s mother), the trial court found Mackey failed to prove he was unavoidably prevented from obtaining the recantations and denied relief; Mackey appealed.
The appellate court affirmed: it held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in crediting credibility findings, and Mackey also failed to show the prosecution knowingly presented false testimony (a constitutional claim required to overcome the time bar).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Mackey)	Held
Whether Mackey was "unavoidably prevented" from timely discovering recantations so as to overcome R.C. 2953.21 time bar	The recantations were unreliable, suspicious, and the trial court properly disbelieved the witnesses’ explanations for delay; Mackey failed to show prosecutorial knowledge of perjury	Mackey argued he and counsel made diligent efforts, witnesses were unavailable or fearful, and their hearing testimony explained the delay — so the statutory exception applies	Affirmed: appellate court held trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the unavoidably-prevented showing based on credibility findings and other record factors
Whether the trial court erred in denying Mackey’s motion to strike the State’s untimely post-hearing memorandum	The State’s late memorandum did not prejudice Mackey; the court had the hearing record and could consider it	Mackey argued the memorandum was untimely and cited a transcript he did not possess, so it should be struck	Affirmed: trial court’s implicit denial of the motion was not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown

Gondor v. Monteith, 112 Ohio St.3d 377 (Ohio 2006) (deference to trial court credibility findings and abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
Earles v. United States, 983 F. Supp. 1236 (N.D. Iowa 1997) (recantations examined with skepticism: witness either lied then or now)
Provost v. United States, 969 F.2d 617 (8th Cir. 1992) (same point on the inherent suspicion of recantation)