State v. Wright
Decision Date | 31 May 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 89-CA-64,89-CA-64 |
Citation | 67 Ohio App.3d 827,588 N.E.2d 930 |
Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. WRIGHT, Appellant. |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
William F. Schenck, Pros. Atty., Xenia, for appellee.
Cedric Wright, pro se.
Defendant-appellant Cedric Wright appeals from the denial of his motion for a new trial, based upon newly discovered evidence. Wright submitted an affidavit from one of the witnesses against him at trial, in which the witness recanted his testimony. The affidavit was accompanied by a letter from the witness, to the trial judge, stating that: "Cedric Wright did not know until this date, July 3, 1989 that I was going to make a notarized statement, and the contents of that statement."
The trial court denied Wright's motion for a new trial, without a hearing, upon the grounds that Wright had failed to show, by clear and convincing evidence, that he was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he was relying for his motion for a new trial.
We conclude that it is error for a trial court to determine, without a hearing, that a defendant has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from the prior discovery of evidence, when documents submitted by the defendant, on their face, support his claim that he was prevented from earlier discovering the evidence. Accordingly, the trial court's denial of Wright's motion for a new trial without a hearing will be reversed, and this cause will be remanded for a hearing upon Wright's motion.
Wright was convicted, following a jury trial, of one count of aggravated robbery, with both a firearm specification and a prior aggravated felony specification, and also of one count of robbery. Wright was sentenced accordingly.
Wright appealed, but this court affirmed his convictions and sentences.
In February 1989, Wright filed a petition for post-conviction relief. Included as an exhibit to that petition was a copy of a letter that Wright had received from one of the witnesses against him at trial, Michael Hayes, a co-participant in the offense. Included in that letter was the following sentence:
Among other matters raised in Wright's petition for post-conviction relief was Wright's argument that he was entitled to relief by virtue of Hayes's recantation in that letter.
In its judgment entry denying Wright's petition for post-conviction relief, the trial court dealt with that argument as follows:
On July 21, 1989, Wright filed a motion for a new trial upon the original charge. Wright based his motion for a new trial upon newly discovered evidence, to wit, the following affidavit of Michael Hayes:
Hayes's affidavit is dated July 3, 1989.
Also attached to Wright's motion for a new trial was a letter from Michael Hayes to the trial judge, dated July 3, 1989, the full text of which is as follows:
The above-quoted letter bears what is purported to be Michael Hayes's signature.
The state moved to dismiss Wright's motion for a new trial, or in the alternative, for summary judgment, contending, among other things, that Wright's motion for a new trial was not timely filed in accordance with Crim.R. 33.
Crim.R. 33(B) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The trial court overruled Wright's motion for a new trial by a judgment entry, the full text of which is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Harris v. U.S.
...... Ronnie Harris, an Ohio resident, is a former Olympic and professional boxer, regarded as one of the best middleweights that the State has ever produced. His boxing career included a gold medal at the 1968 Olympics and victories over Sugar Ray Seales and future world champion Alan ......
-
State v. Jackson
...proof of unavoidable delay.” State v. York, 2d Dist. Greene No. 99–CA–54, 2000 WL 192433, *2 (Feb. 18, 2000), citing State v. Wright, 67 Ohio App.3d 827, 828, 588 N.E.2d 930 (1990) ; see also 26 N.E.3d 311 State v. Rice, 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2012–A–0062, 2014-Ohio-4285, 2014 WL 4824869,......
-
State v. Remy, 2004 Ohio 3630 (OH 6/10/2004), Case No. 03CA2731.
...App. No. C-020736, 2003-Ohio-4962 at ¶14; State v. Ravner (Sept. 27, 2000), Fairfield App. No. 00CA13, distinguishing State v. Wright (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 827. {¶80} Crim.R. 33(A)(6) plainly provides that newly discovered evidence is evidence "which the defendant could not with reasonable......
-
State v. Condon, C-030621.
...source of the evidence was available for examination or cross-examination by an accused sic counsel at trial." State v. Wright (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 827, 832, 588 N.E.2d 930. It makes little difference if a defendant knows about the testimony of a witness who exercises his or her right not......