State v. Williams, 2017 Ohio 8475

In July 2007 Cameron D. Williams entered his ex-wife Tamara Hughes’ apartment, shot and killed Darien Polk, and then abducted Hughes; Williams confessed at arrest and Hughes testified against him at trial.
Williams was convicted of aggravated murder and other counts and sentenced to life with parole eligibility after 69 years; he pursued multiple post-conviction motions and appeals over several years.
On January 23, 2017 Williams sought leave to file a delayed motion for new trial, asserting actual innocence and claiming his prior confession was false because Hughes — not he — shot Polk.
Williams’ sole new evidence was an affidavit from a fellow inmate who claimed Hughes told him in 2009 that Williams was innocent and that he had confessed to protect her.
The trial court denied leave to file the delayed new-trial motion without a hearing, finding Williams failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the affidavit or other evidence in the 120-day window.
This appeal challenges the denial of leave and the absence of an evidentiary hearing; the appellate court affirmed the trial court.

Issue	Williams' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to file a delayed motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence (actual innocence)	Williams: He was unavoidably prevented from discovering the inmate’s conversation with Hughes and thus from timely filing; the affidavit shows Hughes admitted Williams was protecting her.	State: Williams failed to prove unavoidable delay by clear and convincing evidence; the affidavit is hearsay, unreliable, and untimely; Williams could have raised an actual-innocence claim earlier.	Court: No abuse of discretion; Williams did not meet the clear-and-convincing standard to excuse the 120-day filing limit, so leave was properly denied.
Whether an evidentiary hearing was required on the motion for leave	Williams: A hearing was warranted because his affidavit raised factual issues about unavoidable prevention and actual innocence.	State: The affidavit, on its face, failed to establish unavoidable delay or credibility, so no hearing was needed.	Court: No hearing required because the proffered evidence did not, on its face, satisfy the unavoidable-delay standard.

Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse-of-discretion standard described)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954) (definition of clear-and-convincing proof)
State v. Williams, 148 Ohio St.3d 403 (2016) (prior appellate history and procedural background of this defendant)
State ex rel. Williams v. Hunter, 138 Ohio St.3d 511 (2014) (prior Ohio Supreme Court decision in defendant’s prolonged postconviction litigation)