2020 Ohio 6741
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Terrance J. Walter was convicted by a jury (with codefendant Antonio Campbell testifying for the state) of Samuel Sims Jr.'s murder and sentenced to an aggregate 34 years to life.
- Over many years Walter pursued multiple postconviction and collateral motions (App.R.26(B), Civ.R.60(B) issues, petitions for postconviction relief, and earlier motions for new trial); many were denied or dismissed on procedural grounds.
- In fall 2017 Walter obtained a police report (via third parties) he claimed contained newly discovered evidence (DNA details, witness statements, alleged omissions, and other investigative material). He did not personally receive the materials until early 2019.
- Walter filed (more than a decade after conviction) a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion and a successive postconviction petition, arguing the police report proved newly discovered evidence and that he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing.
- The trial court denied leave to file the delayed Crim.R. 33 motion and denied the postconviction petition; Walter appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding no showing that the police report constituted newly discovered evidence or that Walter was unavoidably prevented from timely filing, and noting Walter failed to brief the postconviction statutory standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Walter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Walter was entitled to leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 motion for new trial based on the police report | The police report and its contents were not "newly discovered"; much of the material was known or explored at trial and therefore available to defense counsel | The police report contains material newly discovered evidence that could not have been found with reasonable diligence before trial and he was unavoidably prevented from timely filing because he only obtained/received the report in 2017–2019 | Denied. Walter failed to show the report or its contents were newly discovered or that he was unavoidably prevented from filing; no abuse of discretion by trial court |
| Whether the police report qualifies as "newly discovered evidence" under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | Contents were effectively known to defense or were the subject of trial cross-examination; documentary production does not automatically equal newly discovered evidence | The report reveals previously unavailable, material information (DNA linkage details, witness statements, etc.) | The court held the report did not constitute newly discovered evidence—trial testimony and cross-examination already addressed the contested topics; Walter’s assertions were unsubstantiated speculation |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Walter’s successive petition for postconviction relief (R.C. 2953.*) | Walter failed to present argument applying the postconviction statutory standards on appeal | Walter relied on the same materials and argued the petition established his entitlement to relief | Appellate review declined on the merits because Walter’s brief focused exclusively on Crim.R. 33 and failed to argue the separate statutory standards; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 893 N.E.2d 163 (2008) (addresses final-appealable-order requirements referenced in postconviction/procedural context)
- State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141, 483 N.E.2d 859 (1984) (defines "unavoidably prevented" standard for delayed Crim.R. 33 motions)
- State v. Mathis, 134 Ohio App.3d 77, 730 N.E.2d 410 (1999) (explains requirement to seek leave before filing a delayed motion for new trial)
- State v. Sutton, 73 N.E.3d 981 (2016) (reiterates abuse-of-discretion standard for trial-court rulings on Crim.R. 33 motions)