State v. Shakoor
2010 Ohio 6386
Ohio Ct. App.2010Background
- Shakoor was convicted by a jury on June 14, 2001 for the murder of Benjamin Reeves; Griffin was the sole eye witness and testified Reeves had no gun and Shakoor shot Reeves repeatedly.
- Griffin previously testified consistent with police statements; Shakoor later sought to recant via post-conviction filings alleging coercion and to recast the facts through Griffin’s recantation.
- In October 2008, Shakoor filed a Motion to Vacate Sentence and Void Conviction, attaching a June 2008 Griffin affidavit recanting her trial testimony; the trial court denied, and this court dismissed related appeals as untimely.
- On December 16, 2009, Shakoor filed a motion for leave to file an untimely Motion for New Trial based on Griffin’s November 17, 2009 recantation affidavit; the trial court denied.
- The Seventh District affirmed, holding the record failed to show that Griffin’s recantation was unavoidably unavailable within Crim.R. 33(B)’s time limits, and that even considering the May 2010 affidavit, it did not demonstrate unavoidability or lead to reversible error.
- The court acknowledged Griffin’s credibility concerns and noted the May 2010 affidavit was not before the trial court, thus not part of the decision on the motion for leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether movant proved unavoidably prevented from discovering the recantation | Shakoor argues Griffin’s 2009 affidavit shows unavoidability. | State contends no unavoidability shown; late discovery beyond Crim.R. 33(B) limits. | No abuse; not proven unavoidably prevented. |
| Whether the appellate court could consider Griffin’s later affidavit | May rely on May 2010 affidavit showing contact and timing. | Affidavits not before trial court; credibility concerns; not proper for reversal. | Appellate court affirmed; May 2010 affidavit not within record for review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (2008-Ohio-5178) (abuse of discretion standard for leave to file Crim.R. 33(B) motion)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (1984) (unavoidably prevented discovery requires reasonable diligence)
- State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158 (1993) (standard for reviewing Crim.R. 33(B) motions for leave)
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151 (1980) (abuse of discretion/standard in post-conviction review)
- State v. Ishmail, 54 Ohio St.2d 402 (1978) (procedural limits and scope of post-conviction relief)
- State v. Fortson, 2003-Ohio-5387 (8th Dist.) (analysis of timeliness and unavoidability in new-trial context)
- State v. Easterling, 26 Ohio App.3d 59 (1985) (credibility considerations for affidavits in post-conviction relief)
- City of Toledo v. Easterling, 26 Ohio App.3d 59 (1985) (recantation credibility and evidentiary weight in post-conviction context)
- State v. Rodriguez, 2009-Ohio-4460 (12 Dist. CA2008-07-162) (credibility of affidavits and weighing recantation in post-conviction)
- State v. Beavers, 166 Ohio App.3d 605 (2006) (credibility factors for affidavits in post-conviction relief)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (1999) (affidavit credibility and internal inconsistencies in post-conviction)