State v. Wade, 2019 Ohio 3464

Jordyn Wade was tried as an adult for a 2015 quadruple homicide and convicted of multiple counts, including aggravated murder and related specifications.
While his direct appeal was pending, Wade filed a motion for new trial based on an affidavit from codefendant Robert Adams claiming Wade did not participate in the crimes.
Wade filed the motion 203 days after Adams executed the affidavit and did not seek leave to file a delayed motion under Crim.R. 33(B).
The trial court denied the motion as untimely and because Wade failed to obtain leave to file a motion for new trial outside the 120-day window; the court alternatively concluded the affidavit did not qualify as newly discovered evidence or show unavoidable prevention.
Wade appealed the denial of the new-trial motion; this Court reviewed only whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Wade's motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence	The State argued the motion was untimely and Wade did not obtain leave to file a delayed motion under Crim.R. 33(B)	Wade argued the Adams affidavit was newly discovered evidence warranting a new trial and the court should have considered it (or treat his filing as a motion for leave)	Court held no abuse of discretion: Wade failed to seek leave to file after the 120-day deadline; the trial court reasonably declined to recast the motion as a motion for leave and alternatively found the motion insufficient

State v. Schiebel, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (trial court has discretion to grant or deny a Crim.R. 33 motion; appellate review is abuse-of-discretion)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (defines abuse of discretion standard as unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable)
State v. Schlee, 117 Ohio St.3d 153 (2008) (courts may recast or construe irregularly captioned motions but are not required to do so)