State v. Shabazz
2014 Ohio 3142
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Appellant Jamil A. Shabazz appeals the trial court’s denial of a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.
- Shabazz was convicted of murder with a three-year firearm specification in 2007 and sentenced to 15 years to life; he appealed multiple times prior to this decision.
- This court previously held in Shabazz IV that his prior Crim.R. 33 motions were time-barred and barred by res judicata, resolving the issues on direct appeal.
- In September 2013, Shabazz filed a new Crim.R. 33(B) motion asserting newly discovered evidence and alleging discovery violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion; on appeal, Shabazz argued plain error and various due process and ineffective assistance theories.
- This court affirms, applying res judicata and concluding Shabazz failed to show he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Crim.R. 33(B) leave was properly denied | Shabazz asserts undiscovered evidence and misconduct merit a new trial. | State contends evidence was available earlier and no compelling grounds to grant leave exist. | Denied;留 rejected under Crim.R. 33(B) and res judicata. |
| Whether res judicata bars relief | Shabazz argues new evidence and discovery issues were not previously available. | State contends issues were raised or could have been raised previously and thus barred. | Res judicata applies; postconviction relief barred. |
| Whether Shabazz showed unavoidably prevented discovery | Newly obtained documents show discovery violations and impeachment material. | Evidence was available at trial or could have been discovered; no unavoidably prevented showing. | Not shown; fail to satisfy clear and convincing standard. |
| Whether the evidence supports a due process or ineffective-assistance claim | State withheld statements and Green’s criminal history; trial counsel ineffective for not using them. | Counsel previously acted within standard practice and discovery rules; evidence was available. | Claims rejected as previously considered; not persuasive anew. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Lentz, 70 Ohio St.3d 527 (1994) (res judicata—bar on postconviction relief)
- State v. Cole, 2 Ohio St.3d 112 (1982) (requirements to overcome res judicata; dehors-the-record evidence)
- State v. Clement, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97930 (2012-Ohio-3818) (unavoidably prevented discovery standard for new-trial motion)