without hearing in Ohio

2026In addition, “[t]his Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Grad, 2022-Ohio-4221, ¶ 8 (9th Dist.), reversed on other grounds by State v. Grad, 2024-Ohio-5710 .

2025Case Number 24CA012114 – The Police Report ASSIGMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO DETERMINE IF [MR.] LITTLE ESTABLISHED THAT THE STATE’S 4 SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE PREVENTED HIM FROM DISCOVERING AND FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITHIN THE 120-DAY DEADLINE IN CRIM.R. 33(B). {¶11} Mr. Little argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his March 13, 2024 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing because he only recently came into possession of a 2007 police report which he claims the State suppressed and was material t

1992Crim.R. 33 allows a trial court to entertain a motion for a new trial, and “[t]he allowance of a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence is within the competence and discretion of the trial judge; and in the absence of a clear showing of abuse such decision will not be disturbed.” State v. Williams (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 88 , 72 O.O.2d 49 , 330 N.E.2d 891 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

1992Crim.R. 33 allows a trial court to entertain a motion for a new trial, and “[t]he allowance of a motion for a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence is within the competence and discretion of the trial judge; and in the absence of a clear showing of abuse such decision will not be disturbed.” State v. Williams (1975), 43 Ohio St.2d 88 , 72 O.O.2d 49 , 330 N.E.2d 891 , paragraph two of the syllabus.

2025Case Number 24CA012114 – The Police Report ASSIGMENT OF ERROR THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN FAILING TO DETERMINE IF [MR.] LITTLE ESTABLISHED THAT THE STATE’S 4 SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE PREVENTED HIM FROM DISCOVERING AND FILING A MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL WITHIN THE 120-DAY DEADLINE IN CRIM.R. 33(B). {¶11} Mr. Little argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his March 13, 2024 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial without a hearing because he only recently came into possession of a 2007 police report which he claims the State suppressed and was material t

2025Over a year later, the trial court denied the motion. {¶ 8} Bostick appealed the denial to the Eighth District, asserting a single assignment of error: “The trial court violated Hollis Bostick’s state and federal constitutional rights when it summarily denied his motion for a new trial without a hearing and did so after granting him leave to file it.” The Eighth District affirmed, concluding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the motion without a hearing. 2023-Ohio-3631, ¶ 29 .

2025It denied Wood’s motion for a new trial without a hearing. {¶ 64} “A trial court's ruling on a motion for leave to move for a new trial is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” McNeal, 2022-Ohio-2703, at ¶ 13 .

2025(Dkt. 132).” Motion for a New Trial – Crim.R. 33(B) {¶13} In a motion for leave to file a motion for new trial pursuant to Crim.R.33, “the defendant must establish that the new evidence: (1) discloses a strong probability that it will change the result if a new trial is granted, (2) has been discovered since the trial, (3) is such as could not in the exercise of due diligence have been discovered before the trial, (4) is material to the issues, (5) is not merely cumulative to former evidence, and (6) does not merely impeach or contradict the former evidence.” State v. Grad, 2024-Ohio- 5710, ¶

2025Here, there is no conflict between R.C. 3319.111(E) and (C)(2)(d)(i) that we must resolve. {¶66} Appellant also cites the Supreme Court of Ohio’s following statement in Jones, 2024-Ohio-2844 : The plain language of R.C. 3319.111(E) requires three “observations of [the] teacher who is under consideration for nonrenewal.” And this is without exception.

2024Clear and convincing proof is that “which will produce in the mind of the trier of facts a firm belief or 4 conviction as to the facts sought to be established.” Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (1954), paragraph three of the syllabus. {¶10} “This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.” State v. Grad, 9th Dist.

2024Id. at 358 .1 Jones sought post-conviction relief, which was denied by the trial court without hearing.

2022Medina No. 18CA0106-M, 2019-Ohio-4394, ¶ 11 . {¶8} This Court reviews a trial court’s decision to deny leave to file an untimely motion for a new trial without a hearing for an abuse of discretion.

2013Their first assigned error is as follows: “THE TRIAL ERRED BY NOT GRANTING THE MCGLOTHINS’ MOTION UNDER CIV.R. 56(F) SO THAT DISCOVERY COULD BE OBTAINED.” {¶ 10} BoA responds that the McGlothins failed to provide an adequate reason for delay in conducting discovery and that they made no attempt to conduct discovery prior to the filing of the motion for summary judgment. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: A party who moves for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis of its motion and “identifying those 7 portions of the record that demonstrate

2013Their first assigned error is as follows: “THE TRIAL ERRED BY NOT GRANTING THE MCGLOTHINS’ MOTION UNDER CIV.R. 56(F) SO THAT DISCOVERY COULD BE OBTAINED.” {¶ 10} BoA responds that the McGlothins failed to provide an adequate reason for delay in conducting discovery and that they made no attempt to conduct discovery prior to the filing of the motion for summary judgment. {¶ 11} As this Court has previously noted: A party who moves for summary judgment bears the initial burden of informing the trial court of the basis of its motion and “identifying those 7 portions of the record that demonstrate

2012Consequently, we are not persuaded that the prosecutor’s statements constituted misconduct, or that Brown was denied a fair trial herein. {¶22} Brown’s first assignment of error is, therefore, overruled. -11- Case No. 6-12-01 Assignment of Error No. IV The trial court erred, to the detriment of the Defendant, when it ruled on the motion without scheduling a hearing. {¶23} In his fourth assignment of error, Brown argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial without a hearing on the basis that trial counsel did not request a hearing when, in fact, trial counsel request

2007In finding that a hearing was required, we relied on the Supreme Court of Ohio decision of Rulli v. Fan Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 374 , where the court held that: "[w]here the meaning of terms of a settlement agreement is disputed, or where there is a dispute that contests the existence of a settlement agreement, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to entering judgment." Id. at syllabus.

2007In finding that a hearing was required, we relied on the Supreme Court of Ohio decision of Rulli v. Fan Co. (1997), 79 Ohio St.3d 374 , where the court held that: "[w]here the meaning of terms of a settlement agreement is disputed, or where there is a dispute that contests the existence of a settlement agreement, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing prior to entering judgment." Id. at syllabus.