State v. Seal, 75 N.E.3d 1035

Arthur Seal was convicted by a jury on December 3, 2012 of methamphetamine manufacture, possession/assembly of chemicals for manufacture (both with juvenile-vicinity findings), and endangering children; aggregate 14-year sentence affirmed on direct appeal.
Seal pursued multiple post-conviction and discovery motions in 2013 asserting (a) the State withheld exculpatory evidence (Mark Ervin’s criminal record), (b) trial counsel previously represented Ervin (conflict/ineffective assistance), and (c) evidence suggesting Robert Coburn was the actual perpetrator.
Trial court denied Seal’s 2013 post-conviction filings and a separate motion for a 911 recording; those denials were upheld or appeals dismissed in subsequent proceedings.
On February 26, 2016, Seal filed a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Ervin/Coburn records and the alleged counsel conflict).
The trial court denied leave to file the delayed new-trial motion without an evidentiary hearing; Seal appealed. The appellate court reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
The court found Seal knew of the grounds for his claims in 2013 but waited over two and a half years to seek leave, provided no adequate explanation for the delay, and concluded the delay was unreasonable — affirming denial of leave.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State suppressed exculpatory evidence (Ervin’s criminal history) requiring a new trial	State argued no reversible suppression warranting new trial	Seal argued Ervin’s record was withheld and would impeach credibility/exculpate him	Court rejected — procedural denial for unreasonable delay in seeking leave to file delayed Crim.R. 33 motion
Whether counsel’s prior representation of witness Ervin created a conflict/ineffective assistance requiring new trial	State maintained no prejudice shown from any alleged conflict	Seal asserted prior representation created an adverse conflict that impaired defense	Court rejected — claims raised earlier and Seal unreasonably delayed seeking relief; no leave to file granted
Whether alleged evidence implicating Robert Coburn as the perpetrator constitutes newly discovered evidence justifying delayed new-trial motion	State argued evidence insufficient and untimely under Crim.R. 33(B)	Seal argued Coburn-related materials newly established Coburn’s culpability and undermined verdict	Court held Seal was aware of Coburn theory in 2013, delay to 2016 unreasonable; denial affirmed

State v. Seal, 20 N.E.3d 292 (4th Dist. 2014) (affirming Seal’s convictions)
State v. Hoover-Moore, 50 N.E.3d 1010 (10th Dist. 2015) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denial of leave to file delayed motion for new trial)