State v. Shuster
2017 Ohio 2776
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Michael Shuster was convicted of multiple sexual offenses and sentenced to an aggregate term of 105 years to life; convictions and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Shuster filed post-conviction and multiple motions for new trial (including one based on a juror affidavit); prior collateral relief and new-trial attempts were denied and those denials were affirmed on appeal.
- On November 4, 2016 Shuster filed a motion for leave to file a new-trial motion alleging prosecutorial misconduct and trial-court abuse of discretion; the trial court denied leave on November 28 and December 7, 2016.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely under Crim.R. 33 and because the claims were cognizable from the trial record and thus barred by res judicata.
- Shuster appealed the denial of leave to file a new-trial motion; he argued the court should have held a hearing and addressed the merits despite the timing.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the motion was untimely under Crim.R. 33 and that the asserted errors were record-based and therefore barred by res judicata.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Shuster) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to file a new-trial motion outside Crim.R. 33 time limits | Motion was untimely and Shuster offered no showing of unavoidable delay | Leave should be granted in the interest of justice; claims concern prosecutorial misconduct and court abuse and merit a hearing | Denial affirmed; motion untimely under Crim.R. 33 and no showing of unavoidable delay |
| Whether the court erred by not holding a hearing or addressing merits | No hearing required where claims are time-barred and record-based; court may decide without hearing | A hearing was required to address prosecutorial misconduct and ensure a fair trial | No error; hearing not required when motion is untimely and barred by res judicata |
| Whether claims alleging trial errors and prosecutorial misconduct were reviewable in this collateral motion | These claims are record-based and could have been raised on direct appeal; res judicata bars them | Claims should be considered regardless of res judicata because of injustice and trial-level abuses | Claims barred by res judicata; issues could have been raised on direct appeal, so collateral relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (standard for abuse of discretion review of new-trial motions)
- State v. Hill, 64 Ohio St.3d 313 (Ohio 1992) (trial court discretion to hold or deny evidentiary hearing on new-trial motion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (abuse of discretion defined as arbitrary or unreasonable)
- State v. Szefcyk, 77 Ohio St.3d 93 (Ohio 1996) (res judicata bars raising on collateral review issues that were or could have been raised on direct appeal)
- State v. Perry, 10 Ohio St.2d 175 (Ohio 1967) (foundational Ohio doctrine on res judicata in criminal cases)
- State ex rel. Collins v. Pokorny, 86 Ohio St.3d 70 (Ohio 1999) (no duty to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law when denying a motion for new trial)
- State v. Girts, 121 Ohio App.3d 539 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997) (discussing findings requirement and new-trial procedure)