State v. Thomas, 93 N.E.3d 227

Defendant Lewis Thomas III was convicted in 1988 of aggravated murder, aggravated robbery, and felonious assault and unsuccessfully pursued multiple appeals and postconviction efforts over the years.
In April 2015 Thomas moved for leave under Crim.R. 33(B) to file a Crim.R. 33(A)(6) new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence and a claim of actual innocence.
Thomas contended he did not receive the purportedly exculpatory law‑enforcement and hospital reports until 2009 from the Ohio Public Defender and thus could not have discovered them within 120 days of his 1988 verdict.
The common pleas court found Thomas had shown he was unavoidably prevented from learning of the evidence before 2009 but concluded his six-year delay (2009–2015) in seeking leave was unreasonable and denied the Crim.R. 33(B) motion without an evidentiary hearing.
On appeal, this court limited review to the denial of the Crim.R. 33(B) motion (first assignment of error), dismissing the separate appeal that referenced an entry not in the record and declining to address Thomas’s direct challenges to his convictions for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave must be filed within a reasonable time after discovery of new evidence	The State: court may deny leave when delay after discovery is unreasonable	Thomas: once he learned of the evidence in 2009, he could timely seek leave and was entitled to move for a new trial	The court: a reasonable‑time requirement applies; courts may deny leave for unexplained/unreasonable delay after discovery
Whether Thomas’s 6‑year delay (2009–2015) in seeking leave was reasonable	The State: the six‑year delay was unreasonable and unsupported	Thomas: lacked explanation for delay in his filings but asserted late discovery justified leave	The court: six‑year delay was unreasonable; denial was not an abuse of discretion
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave without an evidentiary hearing	The State: no hearing required when the court properly determines delay is unreasonable	Thomas: denial without a hearing was improper and prejudicial	The court: no abuse of discretion in denying leave or holding no hearing where delay was dispositive
Whether the appellate court may review Thomas’s other assignments challenging convictions	The State: appellate review limited to the judgment appealed	Thomas: attempted to raise multiple conviction challenges in this appeal	The court: limited jurisdiction to the appealed judgment; cannot address other conviction challenges

State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (explaining Crim.R. 33(B) burden — defendant must show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new‑trial ground within the 120‑day period)
State v. Thomas, 54 Ohio St.3d 713 (Ohio 1990) (prior appellate proceedings related to these convictions)