State v. Thornton
2017 Ohio 637
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- On June 8–9, 2013, Jimmy Martin and James Ricket left a bar in a rental car with Eric Thornton and Daniel Barnes; Martin testified he was held at gunpoint, ordered into the trunk, escaped, and was then assaulted by Barnes. Physical evidence (blood, jewelry, a 9mm shell casing, a bullet hole) and a recovered firearm tied to Thornton by DNA and fingerprints on the rental car led to charges.
- Thornton was indicted for aggravated robbery, two counts of kidnapping (with firearm specifications), and weapons offenses; bench trial convicted him of aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and firearm specifications; sentenced to 23 years. Direct appeal affirmed.
- In 2016 Thornton moved for leave to file a delayed motion for new trial and filed a petition for post-conviction relief based on: (1) a deposition by Ricket recanting trial testimony (saying it was a mutual fight, not a robbery) and (2) an affidavit from Kayla Dickinson claiming she witnessed a fight and believed it was mutual. Thornton also alleged, without record support, that the State suppressed Martin’s criminal history.
- The trial court denied leave and the petition without an evidentiary hearing, reasoning the new statements were recantations and, even if credited, would not overcome the other trial evidence (fingerprints, gun, ballistics, photos). Thornton appealed.
- The court of appeals affirmed, holding Thornton failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering Ricket’s and Dickinson’s statements within the statutory time limits for a new trial or for timely post-conviction relief; no hearing was required because the proffers did not meet the threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Thornton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence | The court may deny leave where movant fails to show unavoidable prevention and where recantation/new affidavits lack credibility or would not change outcome | Thornton: Ricket recanted and Dickinson’s affidavit are newly discovered; he was unavoidably prevented from learning them in time | Denied — Thornton failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether trial court erred in denying untimely post-conviction relief petition without an evidentiary hearing | Timely-filed requirements are jurisdictional; untimely petitions require showing unavoidable prevention under R.C. 2953.23 | Thornton: Petition untimely but excused because new witness statements were previously unavailable | Denied — petition untimely and Thornton did not meet R.C. 2953.23(A)(1)(a) burden to show unavoidable prevention |
| Whether recantation and affidavit required an evidentiary hearing | Court may summarily deny where proffers do not present prima facie unavoidable prevention or sufficient factual support | Thornton: Deposition and affidavit justify an evidentiary hearing to assess credibility and materiality | Denied — no hearing required because the proffers were conclusory, lacked detail about why unavailable, and would not prima facie meet the threshold |
| Whether alleged suppressed criminal history of victim warranted relief | State: record contained no support for claim; argument unsupported by affidavit or documentation | Thornton: Prosecutor suppressed Martin’s criminal record (Brady theory) and this was newly discovered | Denied — claim unsupported by the record and by required affidavit/documentation, so court declined to address it further |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (Ohio 1990) (motion for new trial and evidentiary-hearing standards reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- State v. Sage, 31 Ohio St.3d 173 (Ohio 1987) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- State v. Calhoun, 86 Ohio St.3d 279 (Ohio 1999) (post-conviction relief is civil collateral attack, not a second appeal)
- State v. Steffen, 70 Ohio St.3d 399 (Ohio 1994) (post-conviction relief does not automatically entitle petitioner to evidentiary hearing)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (definition of "unavoidably prevented" and reasonable diligence requirement)