State v. Morris, 2017 Ohio 1196

In 2010 D’Alcapone Morris was convicted of murder, aggravated robbery, aggravated burglary, and a firearm specification; sentence 35 years to life; convictions affirmed on direct appeal in 2012.
Crime facts: Morris and Michael Guy went to purchase marijuana; an altercation at Buckman’s house ended with Pogue shot dead; Morris admitted bringing a revolver and struggling over the gun but denied intent to rob or kill.
In Sept. 2015 Morris sought leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, claiming a jailhouse witness (Joshua Davis) told him he heard/observed additional gunfire after Morris left the house—allegedly supporting reasonable doubt.
Morris provided no affidavits or documentary proof with the motion; later claimed he mailed an affidavit, but the appellate court declined to add it to the trial record.
Morris separately moved for production of trial transcripts and related records as an indigent inmate; the trial court denied the request under the applicable public-records statute and because no justiciable proceeding was pending.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion denying leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence	State: Morris offered only bald allegations and no clear and convincing proof of unavoidable prevention; motion lacked affidavits or corroboration	Morris: Witness Davis’s account of a later shot is material and could not reasonably have been discovered earlier; supports reasonable doubt	Court: Affirmed. Denial not an abuse of discretion because Morris presented only allegations and failed to meet clear-and-convincing proof requirement
Whether trial court erred in denying indigent defendant’s request for production of transcripts/records	State: No entitlement to duplicate transcripts when one was filed on direct appeal; public-records statute permits denial absent a judge’s finding that records are necessary to support a justiciable claim	Morris: Indigent and unable to inspect records in person; needs transcripts/discovery to pursue post-conviction relief	Court: Affirmed. No pending justiciable proceeding tied to request; transcripts had been filed on appeal; trial court did not abuse discretion

State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (standard: new-trial motions on newly discovered evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion defined as arbitrary, unreasonable, or unconscionable)
AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (decision is unreasonable if no sound reasoning supports it)
State v. Kiraly, 56 Ohio App.2d 37 (1978) (more than mere allegation required to prove unavoidable prevention for Crim.R. 33 relief)
State ex rel. Russell v. Thornton, 111 Ohio St.3d 409 (2006) (heightened requirements for incarcerated persons seeking public records under R.C. 149.43)