State v. McAlpin

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that a defendant’s failure to obtain leave before filing an untimely motion for a new trial under Ohio Crim.R. 33(B) justified denial of the motion. The court affirmed the Eighth District Court of Appeals’ judgment affirming denial of Joseph McAlpin’s August 2019 motion for a new trial and remanded for the trial court to address his pending February 2020 motion for leave.

Holdings

1. Under Ohio Crim.R. 33(B), a defendant must first obtain leave of court before filing an untimely motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Failure to obtain that leave is sufficient reason to affirm the denial of the untimely motion.
2. The record showed that McAlpin's February 2020 motion for leave was directed to the later April 2020 supplemental new-trial motion, not the August 2019 motion at issue on appeal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court properly denied McAlpin's August 2019 untimely motion for a new trial when he had not obtained leave before filing it.
2. Whether McAlpin's February 2020 motion for leave was directed to the August 2019 motion or instead to the later April 2020 supplemental motion.
3. Whether a court of appeals may treat a trial-court order as implicitly disposing of a motion that the order did not expressly address.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded