State v. Yates
2011 Ohio 4962
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Yates was convicted of murder with two firearm specifications in May 2005 and received 23 years to life in prison.
- This court previously affirmed his conviction and his petition for postconviction relief claims.
- In June 2009, Yates filed a motion for leave to file a delayed motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied in March 2011.
- Yates argued the 2008 changes to R.C. 2901.05 and 2901.09 (Senate Bill 184) constituted newly discovered evidence.
- The trial court and the appellate court treated the motion as a request to consider newly discovered evidence under Crim.R. 33(B) timing rules.
- The appellate court held no abuse of discretion in denying leave to file the delayed motion for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion denying leave to file a delayed motion for new trial | Yates contends new evidence arose from 2008 code changes warranting a new trial | Yates waited seven months without explanation; changes do not directly affect his conviction | No abuse; motion for leave denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Pinkerman, 88 Ohio App.3d 158 (Ohio App.3d 1993) (standard for timely or untimely motions for new trial)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (abuse of discretion involves unreasonable, arbitrary conduct)
- State v. Coon, 2005-Ohio-1973 (Ohio 2005) (unexplained multi-month delay in filing motion defeats unavoidably prevented showing)