State v. Wilson, 2012 Ohio 1660

Anthony L. Wilson was convicted in 2007 by jury of complicity to felonious assault with a firearm specification and sentenced to seven years.
The 2007 Judgment Entry of Conviction did not specify the manner of conviction; Lester later clarified finality standards.
Defendant timely appealed three consolidated appeals arising from (1) untimely post-conviction motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence, (2) motion to stay court costs, and (3) resentencing for postrelease-control issues.
In 2010 the court amended the judgment to reflect the manner of conviction (jury verdict) nunc pro tunc to 2007; the amendment followed the trial court’s ruling on the new-trial issue.
The trial court limited resentencing to correcting postrelease-control defects; the court denied cost-stay relief and, on the new-trial issue, ultimately denied relief; the appellate court affirmed this framework and the challenged rulings.
Defendant’s sixth assignment contended newly discovered evidence warranted a new trial; the court held no abuse of discretion and affirmed the trial court’s denial of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Final order finality under Lester vs Baker	Wilson contends 2007 judgment was void for not naming manner of conviction	Lester permits finality without stating manner of conviction	2007 judgment was a final order under Lester
Speedy sentencing and speedy-trial rights	Delay between conviction and resentencing violated Crim.R. 32(A) and speedy-trial norms	Delay did not extend trial; no violation; waiver due to failure to raise earlier	No speedy-trial/speedy-sentencing violation; issues overruled
Limited resentencing hearing under postrelease-control defect correction	Resentencing should have been de novo to correct all aspects	Correction of postrelease-control sufficed	Resentencing limited to postrelease-control correction; no de novo hearing required
Stay of costs, fines, and restitution	Court lacked authority to stay imposition of costs	Indigent status could waive costs; stay relief not authorized	Court lacked authority to grant stay; cost waiver possible under statute; stay denied
Delay-based new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence	New evidence from Brian Davis would change outcome	Evidence could not have been discovered earlier; credible new testimony	No abuse of discretion; motion denied; judgment affirmed

State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197 (2008) (final judgment must state the manner of conviction to be final per Crim.R. 32(C))
State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303 (2011) (final order may be final even if manner of conviction not stated; must include required elements)
State v. Fischer, 128 Ohio St.3d 92 (2010) (limited resentencing for postrelease-control defects; not de novo sentencing)
State v. Ludy, 2011-Ohio-4544 (2011) (post-Lester decisions on resentencing scope)
State v. Glandon, 2006-Ohio-39 (2006) (court cannot stay costs absent statutory authority; indigency waives costs under R.C. 2949.092)
State v. Clevenger, 2007-Ohio-4006 (2007) (statutory authority required to stay restitution or costs)
State v. Petro, 149 Ohio St. 505 (1947) (new-trial standards for newly discovered evidence)
State v. DeVaughns, 2011-Ohio-125 (2011) (standards for new-trial based on newly discovered evidence)
Schiebel v. State, 55 Ohio St.3d 71 (1990) (abuse of discretion standard for trial-court rulings)