State v. Abraham

Summary

The Ohio Eighth District Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Raliegh Abraham’s untimely motion for a new trial because he filed it before obtaining leave of court as required by Ohio Criminal Rule 33(B). The court remanded the case for the trial court to consider Abraham’s still-pending motion for leave.

Holdings

1. Under Crim.R. 33(B), a defendant seeking a new trial outside the applicable time period must first obtain leave of court; filing the untimely motion for new trial simultaneously with, or before the ruling on, the motion for leave does not satisfy the required procedure. The trial court therefore properly denied Abraham's untimely motion for new trial.
2. When the trial court denies an untimely motion for new trial without addressing a separately pending motion for leave, the appellate court may affirm the denial of the new-trial motion and remand with instructions for the trial court to consider the motion for leave.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly denied an untimely motion for new trial that was filed before the court granted leave under Crim.R. 33(B).
2. Whether the appellate court should remand for the trial court to rule on the defendant's pending motion for leave.

Disposition

affirmed