Application for a new trial shall be made by motion upon written grounds, and except for the cause of newly discovered evidence material for the person applying, which he could not with reasonable diligence have discovered and produced at the trial, shall be filed within three days after the verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where a trial by jury has been waived, unless it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for new trial in which case it shall be filed within three days from the order of the court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from filing such motion within the time provided herein.
Motions for new trial on account of newly discovered evidence shall be filed within one hundred twenty days following the day upon which the verdict was rendered, or the decision of the court where trial by jury has been waived. If it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he must rely, such motion shall be filed within three days from an order of the court finding that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one hundred twenty day period.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1968–2025 · leading case: State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1996).
State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1996). · cites it 7ד33(B) and R.C. 2945.80, the trial court could consider this motion only after it issued an order finding that Blankenship “was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the one hundred twenty day period.”
State v. Walden, 483 N.E.2d 859 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1984). “33(B) is apparently derived from the statutory provision for new trials in a criminal case, R.C. 2945.80, and is somewhat analogous to former R.”
State v. Noling, 2014-Ohio-1339. · cites it 4ד{¶1} Appellant, Tyrone Lee Noling, appeals from the judgment of the Portage County Court of Common Pleas, denying him leave to file a motion for a new trial pursuant to R.C. 2945.80, Crim.R. 33(A)(6), and Crim.”
State v. Isa, 2014-Ohio-139. “See also R.C. 2945.80. {¶ 9} Regarding Isa’s assertion that he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his motion for leave, this Court has held as follows: [A] defendant is entitled to such a hearing if he submits “documents that on their face support his claim that he was…”
State v. Warren, 2015-Ohio-36. “See also R.C. 2945.80. {¶ 12} Additionally, this Court has held as follows: [A] defendant is entitled to such a hearing if he submits documents that on their face support his claim that he was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence at issue.”
State v. Elersic, 2006-G-2740, 2007 Ohio 3371 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2007). “{ 10} On September 25, 2006, Elersic filed a "Motion for Leave to File a Delayed Motion for a New Trial Upon Newly Discovered Evidence, Pursuant to Criminal Rule 33(A)(6) and R.C. 2945.80." Elersic's "motion for leave" asserted that the evidence of his convictions in first Lake…”
State v. Noling, 2022-Ohio-759. “33(A)(6) and R.C. 2945.80. The motion was premised upon evidence, which appellant characterized as 3 Case No.”
State v. Hayden, 2017-Ohio-9308. “First, his new-trial motion was extraordinarily untimely under both R.C. 2945.80 and Crim.R. 33(B). Hayden was convicted in 1990, his new-trial motion does not involve any newly-discovered evidence, and the trial court made no finding about him being unavoidably prevented from…”
State v. Hayden, 2022-Ohio-3574. “First, his new-trial motion was extraordinarily untimely under both R.C. 2945.80 and Crim.R. 33(B). Hayden was convicted in 1990, his new-trial motion does not involve any newly- discovered evidence, and the trial court made no finding about him being unavoidably prevented from…”
State v. Shepard, 239 N.E.2d 116 (Ohio Ct. App. 1968). · cites it 2דSection 2945.80, Bevised Code. See Loeffner v.”
Boyce v. Warden, Chillicothe Corr. Inst., No. 2:23-cv-03240 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2024). · cites it 2דPetitioner relies on the provision Ohio Revised Code § 2945.80 which allows delayed filing of a new trial motion if the filing is made within three days of a court ruling that a defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing on time.”
Lindsay v. North Cent. Corr. Complex, No. 1:23-cv-01649 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 4, 2025). · cites it 2ד) On May 16, 2019, the State responded in 1 Lindsay’s motion is captioned, “Motion for Leave; to File a Motion For New Trial, Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Criminal Rule 33(B); R.C. §2945.80, Due to Prosecutorial Misconduct; R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.