2019 Ohio 3591
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Ronald A. Smith was convicted by a jury in September 2005 of aggravated burglary and aggravated robbery and was sentenced in January 2006 to consecutive 10-year terms (20 years total); convictions were affirmed on direct appeal.
- Throughout the proceedings Smith, though represented by counsel, filed numerous pro se motions; the trial court sometimes entertained those pro se filings but on February 17, 2006 entered an order rejecting a February 15, 2006 pro se application for new trial because Smith had counsel.
- Nearly 13 years later, on June 22, 2018 Smith filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, asserting the trial court had engaged in illegal hybrid representation and claiming ineffective assistance left him unaware of the proper basis for relief.
- Smith filed the substantive motion for new trial on July 30, 2018; the State opposed, arguing Smith was not unavoidably prevented from timely filing and that res judicata/barring principles applied.
- The trial court denied leave to file the delayed motion and overruled the new-trial motion without a hearing; Smith appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing a hearing and denying leave.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Smith leave to file a delayed motion for new trial without an evidentiary hearing | Smith was not "unavoidably prevented" from timely filing; he knew of the basis by Feb. 2006; his 2018 filing was unreasonably delayed; res judicata applies | The trial court engaged in illegal hybrid representation and ineffective assistance prevented discovery of the proper new-trial ground, justifying delayed leave and a hearing | Court affirmed: Smith failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing; 12-year delay was unreasonable; no showing of prejudice from the court addressing pro se motions while he had counsel |
Key Cases Cited
- McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168 (defendant has no right to hybrid representation; may not act as co-counsel while represented)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (abuse-of-discretion standard for appellate review)
- Walden v. 483 N.E.2d 859 (definition of "unavoidably prevented" for delayed Crim.R. 33 relief)
- State v. Parker, 899 N.E.2d 183 (appellate discussion quoting Walden on unavoidable prevention and diligence)