State v. Smith
2014 Ohio 4799
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Taunee Smith was convicted by a jury of murder, two counts of aggravated burglary, four counts of kidnapping, and the trial court found him guilty of having weapons while under disability; he was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 38 years to life plus other years.
- This court previously affirmed most convictions but reversed the consecutive-sentence findings and remanded for resentencing.
- Before resentencing, Smith filed a pro se, delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial based on a codefendant William Lee’s affidavit recanting his trial identification of Smith.
- At the remand resentencing hearing the trial court made the required consecutive-sentence findings, but also (erroneously) imposed three-year firearm-specification sentences even though juries had acquitted Smith of those specifications.
- The trial court summarily denied Smith’s delayed motion for a new trial without a hearing; the State conceded the firearm-specification sentencing error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Smith’s delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on recantation | Smith’s motion was procedurally defective and meritless; in any event, the recantation would not materially affect the verdict given other evidence | William Lee’s recantation of his trial identification of Smith warrants a new trial because it is newly discovered evidence that could change the outcome | Denial affirmed: Smith failed to obtain court leave for a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion and, on the merits, the recantation would not likely change the result given other IDs and evidence; no hearing required |
| Whether the trial court erred by imposing three-year firearm-specification sentences after Smith was acquitted of those specifications | State conceded the imposition was erroneous and should be vacated | Smith argued the same: sentences for firearm specifications should not be imposed after acquittal | Held for Smith: firearm-specification sentences vacated and the sentencing entry remanded for correction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (trial court’s Crim.R. 33 discretion standard) (1990)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (abuse of discretion defined) (1983)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (unavoidable prevention standard for delayed new-trial motions) (1984)
- State v. Petro, 148 Ohio St. 505 (elements for new trial based on newly discovered evidence) (1947)
- State v. Bradley, 101 Ohio App.3d 752 (recantation alone insufficient for new trial) (1995)