State v. Williams
2013 Ohio 1905
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Williams was convicted in 1979 of aggravated murder and aggravated robbery, affirmed on direct appeal in 1980, and the Ohio Supreme Court denied discretionary review in 1980.
- He filed multiple postconviction petitions (1982, 1983, 2002); the trial court denied, and appellate courts affirmed those denials.
- On September 16, 2011, Williams moved for leave to file a Crim.R. 33 motion for a new trial asserting irregularity, jury misconduct, and error of law; the trial court denied on October 15, 2012.
- The appellate court analyzes whether a hearing was required for leave to file a delayed motion based on Crim.R. 33 and the standards for newly discovered evidence.
- The court concluded the motion was outside Crim.R. 33(B)’s 120-day window and, even if unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence, its content failed to satisfy Petro/Barnes criteria for a new trial.
- The court affirmed the trial court’s denial, holding the two assignments of error unpersuasive, and remanded for execution of sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing | Williams contends due process violation from denial without a hearing | State argues no abuse of discretion; hearing unnecessary | No abuse; denial affirmed without a hearing |
| Whether Williams has an available remedy given the timing and evidence | Williams asserts inadequate remedy due to newly discovered evidence | State argues evidence fails Petro/Barnes criteria and timing blocks relief | Remedies not available; assignments overruled |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Barnes, 8th Dist. No. 95557, 2011-Ohio-2917 (Ohio 2011) (six-factor test for newly discovered evidence; strong probability required)
- State v. Petro, 149 Ohio St. 505, 76 N.E.2d 370 (Ohio 1947) (syllabus for evaluating newly discovered evidence in a new-trial motion)
- State v. Gillespie, 2d Dist. No. 24456, 2012-Ohio-1656 (Ohio 2012) (context on evidence strength and new-trial standards)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard for trial court decisions)
- State v. LaMar, 95 Ohio St.3d 181, 2002-Ohio-2128, 767 N.E.2d 166 (Ohio 2002) (discretionary nature of Crim.R. 33 decisions)