State v. Warren
2015 Ohio 36
Ohio Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1995 Raymond Warren was convicted of murder and sentenced to 15 years-to-life plus 3 years on a firearm specification; this court affirmed on direct appeal.
- In 2013 Warren (pro se) filed a motion asserting newly discovered evidence: affidavits from two state witnesses (Chante Hunt and Antonio Robinson/Johnson) recanting trial testimony implicating Warren.
- The trial court construed the submission as a motion for leave to file a delayed Crim.R. 33 new-trial motion and denied leave on January 30, 2014.
- The State filed its memorandum in opposition on January 21, 2014; local rules gave Warren ten days (because of mail service) to file a reply, i.e., until Jan. 31, 2014.
- The trial court ruled one day before Warren’s reply deadline; Warren appealed, arguing the court prematurely denied leave and should have held a hearing; he also sought to expand the record to include an Ohio Innocence Project attorney affidavit.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred by denying leave before Warren’s allotted time to file a reply; it did not decide whether the record should be expanded or whether a hearing was required. Judge Hall dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Warren demonstrated he was "unavoidably prevented" from discovering new evidence under Crim.R. 33(A)(6) | The State argued Warren failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the recantations | Warren argued affidavits from recanting witnesses show he was unavoidably prevented and warrant leave and a hearing | Not decided on merits; remanded because trial court prematurely ruled before reply time expired |
| Whether the trial court erred by ruling before Warren's reply period expired under local rules | State relied on its memorandum in opposition filed Jan. 21 and substantive objections | Warren argued he was entitled to the full ten days to file a reply before the court ruled | Reversed: trial court erred by overruling motion for leave one day before reply deadline |
| Whether the motion and supporting affidavits warranted a hearing on leave to file a delayed new-trial motion | State maintained the submissions were insufficient to require a hearing | Warren contended the recantations (affidavits) on their face warranted a hearing on unavoidable prevention | Not reached; procedural error made the issue moot on appeal |
| Whether the appellate court should expand the record to include an Ohio Innocence Project attorney affidavit | State opposed expansion (argued procedural sufficiency/untimeliness) | Warren sought to expand record to provide context and support unavoidable-prevention claim | Not decided by majority; remand allows trial court to address expansion and merits |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Parker, 899 N.E.2d 183 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008) (explaining Crim.R. 33(A)(6) and the "unavoidably prevented" standard)
- State v. McConnell, 869 N.E.2d 77 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (affidavits recanting trial testimony can warrant a hearing on unavoidable prevention)
- State v. Wright, 588 N.E.2d 930 (Ohio Ct. App. 1990) (recanting witness affidavits may be sufficient on their face to require a hearing)
- State ex rel. Coulverson v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 577 N.E.2d 352 (Ohio 1991) (procedure for presenting grounds in motion practice)