State v. Videen
2017 Ohio 8608
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Lance Videen was indicted in 2011 on two counts of illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material after police found naked images of prepubescent boys on his laptop.
- Videen moved to suppress the images and his stationhouse statements; the trial court denied suppression, finding valid Miranda waivers and voluntary consent to the computer search.
- Videen represented himself at a 2012 bench trial (with standby counsel); the court convicted him on both counts, later vacating one conviction on direct appeal and affirming the other, then remanding for resentencing. He received community control and Tier I sex-offender classification.
- In October 2016, more than four years after the 2012 conviction, Videen filed a motion styled as vacatur or alternatively a Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion alleging, among other things, possible undisclosed cruiser audio/video and other trial-related defects.
- The trial court treated the filing as a Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial, denied it without a hearing as untimely and for failure to show unavoidable prevention or newly discovered evidence, and the denial was affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the untimely Crim.R. 33 motion required leave and a hearing | Motion was filed well beyond Crim.R. 33 time limits; no leave sought; no proof of unavoidable prevention; no hearing required | Motion should be considered because evidence (possible cruiser recording) may exist and was not produced at trial | Court held motion untimely under Crim.R. 33(B); Videen did not seek leave or show by clear and convincing evidence he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing, so no hearing required |
| Whether the asserted evidence (cruiser recording) constituted newly discovered evidence | No showing that any recording exists or was discovered; defendant admitted existence unknown; could have been sought before or within 120 days | Recording (if it exists) is material and was not provided, entitling defendant to a new trial | Court held defendant did not present newly discovered evidence; mere speculation about an unknown recording does not satisfy Crim.R. 33(A)(6)/R.C. 2945.79(F) requirements |
| Whether issues raised were timely or previously available (res judicata) | Issues were known or discoverable at trial or could have been raised on direct appeal; therefore barred and untimely | Issues are new or exculpatory and justify relief now | Court held many claims were irrelevant or known at trial and thus barred by res judicata; they could have been raised on direct appeal |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the motion | Trial court acted within its discretion in applying Crim.R. 33 time limits and standards for unavoidable prevention and newly discovered evidence | Denial without hearing was an abuse of discretion given defendant’s pro se allegations | Court found no abuse of discretion and affirmed the denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Videen, 990 N.E.2d 173 (Ohio 2013) (appellate decision addressing consent to search and vacating one conviction)
- State v. Schiebel, 564 N.E.2d 54 (Ohio 1990) (standard of review for Crim.R. 33 motions; abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Matthews, 691 N.E.2d 1041 (Ohio 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings)
- AAAA Enterprises, Inc. v. River Place Community Urban Redevelopment Corp., 553 N.E.2d 597 (Ohio 1990) (definition of abuse of discretion as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
- State v. Walden, 483 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio Ct. App.) (definition of "unavoidably prevented" to justify delayed new-trial filing)