State v. McConnell, 2011 Ohio 5555

McConnell was convicted in June 2003 of raping his eight-year-old daughter, D.M.
Appellant pursued multiple post‑conviction avenues: 2006 leave to file a motion for new trial, remanded for a hearing, and 2007 leave granted but no motion filed within seven days.
In May 2009, McConnell filed an untimely motion for new trial citing D.M.’s alleged recantation; the trial court denied as untimely on November 6, 2009.
On July 12, 2010, he filed a third motion for leave to file for a motion for new trial, attaching the same recantation affidavit; no new evidence was presented.
The trial court denied the 2010 filing as barred by res judicata; McConnell appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court properly denied leave/new‑trial motions	McConnell argues he was entitled to a hearing on his renewed combined motion.	State contends Crim.R. 33(B) and 33/45 time limits foreclose relief and no excusable delay shown.	No abuse of discretion; motions untimely and facially deficient.
Effect of granting leave to file after long delay	Leave granted in 2007 should permit filing within the seven days and consideration of evidence.	Time limits cannot be extended after leave; delayed filing defeats purpose of Crim.R. 33.	Trial court acted within discretion; delay after leave barred.
Adequacy of evidence supporting recantation	Recantation evidence was newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6).	Recantation is weak, largely uncorroborated, and evidence is insufficient to affect trial outcome.	Even if considered, evidence insufficient and not credible enough to warrant relief.

State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (establishes standard for abuse-of-discretion review of Crim.R. 33 decisions)
State v. Brumback, 109 Ohio App.3d 65 (Ohio App.3d 1996) (abuse-of-discretion standard governs Crim.R. 33 decisions)