2018 Ohio 4415
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Terrance Walter was convicted of aggravated murder, aggravated burglary, and felonious assault; his co-defendant Antonio Campbell pleaded guilty and testified against him. Walter received an aggregate sentence of 34 years to life.
- On direct appeal this court affirmed the murder and felonious assault convictions and vacated the aggravated burglary convictions; the Ohio Supreme Court declined further review.
- Over the years Walter filed multiple postconviction motions (including a prior motion for new trial based on a recantation) and other collateral actions; most were denied or dismissed on procedural grounds.
- In November 2017 Walter moved for leave under Crim.R. 33(B) to file a motion for new trial, alleging trial counsel had a conflict because he previously represented Campbell; Walter relied on county journal entries he obtained in October 2013 showing counsel’s prior representation of Campbell.
- The trial court initially granted leave but then vacated that order, denied leave after accepting a late opposition from the State, and declined to hold an evidentiary hearing. Walter appealed, arguing unavoidable delay, procedural unfairness, and conflict of interest by trial counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walter proved "unavoidable delay" under Crim.R. 33(B) | State: Walter failed to prove clear and convincing unavoidable delay; documents were obtained in 2013 and delay to 2017 was unexplained | Walter: He was unavoidably prevented from timely filing because prior requests for journal entries were ignored and he only obtained entries in 2013 | Court: Denied — Walter did not show clear and convincing proof of unavoidable delay nor explain 4-year filing delay after discovery |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by accepting the State’s late opposition and vacating its initial grant of leave | State: Court has docket control and may accept late filings; no constitutional violation | Walter: The State’s opposition was untimely and the court improperly vacated its initial grant based on a late filing | Court: Denied — trial court has broad discretion to manage docket and accepting late brief was not an abuse |
| Whether the trial court erred by denying an evidentiary hearing on the leave motion | State: Court may deny hearing if the motion fails on its face to show unavoidable delay | Walter: Court should have held a hearing to resolve factual disputes | Court: Denied — no abuse of discretion because motion on its face failed to meet the clear-and-convincing standard |
| Merits: whether trial counsel labored under a conflict of interest requiring a new trial | State: Not reached because leave denied; procedural bar to considering merits | Walter: Prior representation of Campbell created a conflict that affected trial | Court: Overruled as moot — merits not reached because leave to file new-trial motion was properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Adams, 62 Ohio St.2d 151, 404 N.E.2d 144 (Ohio 1980) (abuse-of-discretion standard for discretionary rulings)
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 893 N.E.2d 163 (Ohio 2008) (final appealable order procedures referenced in docket history)
- State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158, 623 N.E.2d 643 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (abuse-of-discretion review of Crim.R. 33(B) rulings)
- Walden v. State, 19 Ohio App.3d 141, 483 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (definition of unavoidable delay for newly discovered evidence)
- State v. McConnell, 170 Ohio App.3d 800, 869 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (court may deny hearing when motion fails on its face to show unavoidable delay)