State v. Nieves, 2016 Ohio 5090

In 2004 Manuel Nieves was tried before a three-judge panel and convicted of murder, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and related charges for a home invasion in which Sam Walls was killed; aggregate sentence: 35 years to life.
On appeal the Ninth District affirmed Nieves' convictions and discussed DNA testing of gloves found at the scene: BCI testing showed a major profile consistent with the victim and a minor profile consistent with Nieves; no other DNA profiles were detected.
In December 2014 Nieves, pro se, applied for post-conviction DNA testing of batting gloves, shoes, and clothing, asserting further testing could show Angel Vargas’ DNA and be outcome determinative.
The trial court initially set a response deadline for the State; the State responded late after the court granted an extension, and the court denied Nieves’ application on March 13, 2015.
The trial court relied on R.C. 2953.74(A) to reject re-testing of the gloves (finding prior DNA testing definitive as to Nieves) and cited caselaw to refuse compelled DNA from alternative suspects, but did not clearly state its reasons under R.C. 2953.71–.81 for denying testing of the shoes and clothing.
The Ninth District reversed and remanded, concluding the trial court’s order failed to explain the basis for rejecting DNA testing as applied to the shoes and other clothing per the statutory requirement that reasons be stated.

Issue	State's Argument	Nieves' Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly denied Nieves’ application for post-conviction DNA testing	Prior DNA testing of the gloves was definitive including Nieves as a contributor, so R.C. 2953.74(A) required rejection of re-testing; courts will not force alternative suspects to submit samples	Further testing of gloves/shoes/clothing could reveal Vargas’ DNA and be outcome determinative, warranting testing under R.C. 2953.74(B)/(C)	Court sustained Nieves’ assignment: trial court’s denial as to gloves permissible, but denial as to shoes/clothing lacked statutorily required reasoning — remanded for clarification
Whether the trial court erred by extending the State’s response deadline after Nieves moved to proceed to judgment	Extension was permissible; State allowed to respond	Extension prejudiced Nieves and showed bias favoring the State	Court declined to address this assignment as premature pending remand and further proceedings

State v. Mapson, 1 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1982) (trial court must include reasons when entering judgment denying relief)