State v. Tubbs
2016 Ohio 842
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- In December 2011 Aaron Tubbs (aka "Lil' Homie") was accused of shooting Michael Butts during an apparent drug transaction at Fountain Park; Butts lost money but no marijuana was delivered. Tubbs was convicted by a jury of attempted murder, aggravated robbery, drug trafficking, weapons under disability, and a firearm specification and sentenced to 26 years. Tubbs’ direct appeal was affirmed in 2013.
- In June 2014 Tubbs claims he learned of an alleged conversation between Butts and James Parson in which Butts told Parson that the shooter was not Tubbs; Parson executed an affidavit recounting the statements in June 2014 and claimed he told Tubbs about it the same month.
- Tubbs filed a pro se motion on December 11, 2014 for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (Parson’s affidavit) and requested an evidentiary hearing. The State opposed and the trial court denied leave on April 23, 2015.
- Tubbs appealed the denial of leave to this court. He argued the trial court abused its discretion and denied due process by refusing an evidentiary hearing; he asserted he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within Crim.R. 33’s 120‑day limit.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Tubbs established by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering Parson’s statements, whether Parson’s affidavit on its face justified an evidentiary hearing, and whether Tubbs filed for leave within a reasonable time after discovering the evidence.
- The court held Parson’s affidavit was deficient on its face (lacked context, motive to explain delay, and location/details of the conversation), Tubbs failed to show he exercised reasonable diligence, and the six‑month delay from alleged discovery (June 2014) to filing (December 2014) was unreasonable; therefore leave and an evidentiary hearing were not required and the trial court’s denial was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tubbs) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Tubbs was unavoidably prevented under Crim.R. 33 from discovering Parson’s statements so as to justify leave to file a delayed new‑trial motion | Parson’s affidavit is facially deficient and Tubbs did not show with clear and convincing proof he could not have discovered the evidence with reasonable diligence | Tubbs contends Parson’s affidavit shows Butts told Parson the shooter was not Tubbs and that Tubbs only learned of this in June 2014, so he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing | Held: Tubbs failed to meet the clear‑and‑convincing standard; affidavit lacked necessary detail and explanation of delay, so no leave granted |
| Whether Tubbs was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for leave | No, because submitted affidavits did not on their face support unavoidable‑prevention claim | Yes; Tubbs argued he deserved a reasonable opportunity to be heard and an evidentiary hearing under Crim.R. 33 | Held: No hearing required where affidavits are facially deficient and do not warrant inquiry |
| Whether Tubbs filed his motion for leave within a reasonable time after discovering the evidence | The State argued the six‑month gap between discovery (June 2014) and filing (Dec. 2014) was unreasonable and justified denial | Tubbs offered no explanation for six‑month delay and argued he discovered evidence only in June 2014 | Held: Even assuming unavoidable prevention, Tubbs’ six‑month delay was unreasonable and supports affirming denial |
| Standard of review for denial of Crim.R. 33 leave/new‑trial motion | Abuse of discretion standard; court should uphold trial court absent unreasonable/arbitrary decision | Tubbs argued trial court abused discretion and violated due process by denying hearing | Held: Applying abuse‑of‑discretion review, appellate court found no abuse and affirmed trial court decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1985) (definition of abuse of discretion)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 50 Ohio St.3d 157 (Ohio 1990) (decision unreasonable where no sound reasoning process supports it)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (defendant entitled to hearing on leave motion only if documents on their face support unavoidable‑prevention claim)
- State v. Parker, 178 Ohio App.3d 574 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (clear‑and‑convincing proof required to show unavoidable prevention beyond Crim.R. 33 time limit)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (definition of "unavoidably prevented" and diligence requirement)
- State v. Roberts, 141 Ohio App.3d 578 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001) (requirement that defendant establish clear and convincing evidence when seeking leave after 120 days)