motion without hearing in Ohio

2024Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 319 , 291 N.E.2d 491 [ 61 O.O.2d 476 ], paragraph five of the syllabus; Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9 , 371 N.E.2d 214 [ 7 O.O.3d 5 ], syllabus.

2002Columbus JV326132 v. Plum (1986), 27 Ohio App.3d 293 , 294 , this court held that a trial court has discretion whether to hold a hearing before ruling on a Civ.R. 60(B) motion, and "[w]here grounds for relief from judgment appear on the face of the record, a court may grant the motion without a hearing." See, also, Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9 , syllabus ("a trial court does not abuse its discretion if it grants the Civ.R. 60(B)(1) motion to vacate a judgment without first holding an evidentiary hearing on the Civ.R. 60(B)(1) issue." In the present case, we conclude that, b

2024Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 319 , 291 N.E.2d 491 [ 61 O.O.2d 476 ], paragraph five of the syllabus; Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9 , 371 N.E.2d 214 [ 7 O.O.3d 5 ], syllabus.

2024Matson v. Marks (1972), 32 Ohio App.2d 319 , 291 N.E.2d 491 [ 61 O.O.2d 476 ], paragraph five of the syllabus; Doddridge v. Fitzpatrick (1978), 53 Ohio St.2d 9 , 371 N.E.2d 214 [ 7 O.O.3d 5 ], syllabus.

2004Further, "the trial court (cannot) properly discredit the affidavit on its face and deny the motion without a hearing, at least in the absence of internal inconsistencies in the affidavit sufficient to destroy its credibility on its face." State v. Wright (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 827 , 831 . {¶ 20} Mitchell was entitled to a hearing on his request to file late, for reasons we discussed in ruling on the third assignment of error.

2001The Second District Court of Appeals reversed stating that "the trial court could not properly discredit the affidavit on its face and deny the motion without a hearing, at least in the absence of internal inconsistencies in the affidavit sufficient to destroy its credibility on its face." Id . at 831, 588 N.E.2d at 932 -933 .

2008Instead, the trial court "`must schedule a hearing only on those motions which demonstrate arguable merit. * * * Where a trial court determines that there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing.'" Id., quoting Tosi , at 401 .

2007No. 89-T-4316, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 78 , at 4." {¶ 33} "* * * [A] trial court must schedule a hearing only on those motions which demonstrate arguable merit and where a trial court determines there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing." Ohio Dept. of Adm. Services v. Robert P. Madison Internatl., Inc. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 388 , 399 , citing Tosi v. Jones (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 396 , 401 . *Page 9 {¶ 34} In the case sub judice, the trial court did not hold a hearing.

1994Appellees cite the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Hornyak v. Brooks (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 105, 106-107 , 16 OBR 111, 112-113, 474 N.E.2d 676, 678 , as stating that: *122 “Unless the movant’s affidavit or other evidentiary materials demonstrate grounds for the motion, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing. * * * « ‡ $ “ * * * [OJriginal pleading[s] will not suffice for that purpose [evidentiary material to demonstrate the validity of the underlying claim].” This court has also stated that mere general denials in an answer do not allege a mer

1994Appellees cite the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Hornyak v. Brooks (1984), 16 Ohio App.3d 105, 106-107 , 16 OBR 111, 112-113, 474 N.E.2d 676, 678 , as stating that: *122 “Unless the movant’s affidavit or other evidentiary materials demonstrate grounds for the motion, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing. * * * « ‡ $ “ * * * [OJriginal pleading[s] will not suffice for that purpose [evidentiary material to demonstrate the validity of the underlying claim].” This court has also stated that mere general denials in an answer do not allege a mer

2007No. 89-T-4316, 1991 Ohio App. LEXIS 78 , at 4." {¶ 33} "* * * [A] trial court must schedule a hearing only on those motions which demonstrate arguable merit and where a trial court determines there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing." Ohio Dept. of Adm. Services v. Robert P. Madison Internatl., Inc. (2000), 138 Ohio App.3d 388 , 399 , citing Tosi v. Jones (1996), 115 Ohio App.3d 396 , 401 . *Page 9 {¶ 34} In the case sub judice, the trial court did not hold a hearing.

2007Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d at 219. *Page 13 {¶ 24} This court has held that a trial court "`must schedule a hearing only on those motions which demonstrate arguable merit and where a trial court determines there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing.'" Adams at ¶ 16 , quoting Ohio Dept. of Adm. Servs. v. Robert P. Madison Internatl, Inc. (2000) 138 Ohio App.3d 388 , 399 .

2009State v. Atkinson , Cuyahoga App. No. 85773, 2005-Ohio-5348 .

2008State v. Atkinson , Cuyahoga App. No. 85773, 2005-Ohio-5348 .

2024Shindler, 70 Ohio St.3d 54, 56-58 , 638 N.E.2d 319 (1994).

2000In pertinent part, Crim.R. 47 requires a motion to "state with particularity the grounds upon which it is made." Before a hearing on a motion to suppress evidence is required, "the accused must state the motion's legal and factual bases with sufficient particularity to place the prosecutor and the court on notice of the issues to be decided." State v. Schindler (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 54 , 636 N.E.2d 319 , syllabus, citing Crim.R. 47 and Xenia v. Wallace (1988), 37 Ohio St.3d 216 , 254 N.E.2d 889 .

2018Appellant appeals from this judgment, assigning the following as error: {¶ 9} "The trial court erred and abused its discretion when it failed to grant appellant a hearing on his motion for relief from judgment and summarily overruled it." {¶ 10} In order to prevail on a motion brought pursuant to Civ.R. 60(B), " * * * the movant must demonstrate that (1) the party has a meritorious defense or claim to present if relief is granted; (2) the party is entitled to relief under one of the grounds stated in Civ.R. 60(B)(1) through (5); and (3) the motion is made within a reasonable time, and, where t

2008The court denied the motion without a hearing. *Page 5 {¶ 3} In GTE Automatic Elec, Inc. v. ARC Indus., Inc. (1976), 47 Ohio St.2d 146 , paragraph two of the syllabus states: {¶ 4} "To prevail on a motion brought under Civ.

2017Crim.R. 32.1 provides that “[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.” {¶25} “A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Ogle, 4th Dist.

2017Crim.R. 32.1 provides that “[a] motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest may be made only before sentence is imposed; but to correct manifest injustice the court after sentence may set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea.” {¶25} “A defendant who seeks to withdraw a plea of guilty after the imposition of sentence has the burden of establishing the existence of manifest injustice.” State v. Smith, 49 Ohio St.2d 261 , 361 N.E.2d 1324 (1977), paragraph one of the syllabus; State v. Ogle, 4th Dist.

2009State v. Barton , Warren App. No. CA2006-10-127, 2008-Ohio-2736 , ¶ 11 , citing State v. Watson (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 316 , 324 .

2008State v. Watson (1998), 126 Ohio App.3d 316 , 324 .

2009State v. Bayles , Cuyahoga App. No. 85910, 2005-Ohio-6233 . {¶ 22} The trial court's decision to deny the motion without a hearing also is granted deference.

2008State v. Bayles , Cuyahoga App. No. 85910, 2005-Ohio-6233 . *Page 7 {¶ 23} The trial court's decision to deny the motion without a hearing also is granted deference.

2008Ohio (1992), 79 Ohio App.3d 439 , 444 (stating that if the trial court determines no basis exists for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing, as R.C. 2323.51 does not require the trial court to conduct a hearing before denying a motion for an award of attorney fees, but necessitates a hearing only on those motions which demonstrate arguable merit); Sheridan v. Harbison (1995), 101 Ohio App.3d 206 , appeal not allowed, 72 Ohio St.3d 1551 (concluding that R.C. 2323.51 [B][2], by its express terms, does not mandate an evidentiary hearing whenever a motion for fees i

2004In Sheridan, this Court adopted the position of the Court of Appeals for Franklin County that "[w]here the trial court determines that there is no basis for the imposition of sanctions, it may deny the motion without a hearing." Id. at 212 quoting Justice v. Lutheran Soc.

2008In Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97 , 103 , 316 N.E.2d 469 , we found, with respect to a hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, the moving party "has the burden of proof, [and] must present sufficient factual information to warrant a hearing on the motion." "Unless the movant's affidavit or other evidentiary material demonstrate grounds for the motion, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing.

2008In Adomeit v. Baltimore (1974), 39 Ohio App.2d 97 , 103 , 316 N.E.2d 469 , we found, with respect to a hearing on a motion for relief from judgment, the moving party "has the burden of proof, [and] must present sufficient factual information to warrant a hearing on the motion." "Unless the movant's affidavit or other evidentiary material demonstrate grounds for the motion, the trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying the motion without a hearing.

2008The trial court denied the motion without a hearing on January 3, 2008. {¶ 6} Appellant now appeals and asserts the following assignment of error for our review: {¶ 7} "Defendant was denied due process of law when his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty was denied without an evidentiary hearing." {¶ 8} Within this assignment of error, appellant maintains that the trial court *Page 4 erred in not holding a hearing on his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. {¶ 9} In State v. Thomas , Cuyahoga App. No. 87666, 2006-Ohio-6588 , this court stated: {¶ 10} "Significantly, the Ohio Supreme Court has

2004Calhoun, supra, at paragraph two of the syllabus. {¶ 14} Before granting an evidentiary hearing on the petition, the trial court shall determine whether there are substantive grounds for relief (R.C. 2953.21 [C]), i.e., whether there are grounds to believe that "there was such a denial or infringement of the person's rights as to render the judgment void or voidable under the Ohio Constitution or the Constitution of the United States." (Emphasis added.) R.C. 2953.21 (A)(1). {¶ 15} In the instant case, appellant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

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 .

2023Relying on State v. Blanton, Ohio Slip Opinion No. 2022-Ohio-3985 , __ N.E.3d __, the trial court concluded that, because new counsel had been appointed for Bowman on his direct appeal, Bowman had been required to assert his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in his direct appeal; because Bowman failed to do so, res judicata barred his claim.

2022Barnes III, 2018-Ohio-1585 , supra, ¶ 34.

2022Pickaway No. 11CA23, 2013-Ohio-475 , the trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding that Dunn’s recantation was not credible and that other unspecified evidence supported Hatton’s conviction. {¶ 48} Hatton’s 2019 motion for leave to file a motion for a new trial and his 2019 petition for postconviction relief included a 1998 memo from the state’s DNA expert to the county prosecutor that had not previously been disclosed to Hatton.