Case ID: ohio-st-3d_87/html/1452-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

99-1883.
    State v. Dawson.
   Summit App. No. 19179. On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issues stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed September 22,1999, at page 8:

“Because we find our decision in this case in conflict with the decision of the Second Appellate District in Wright [below], we certify the following question for review:

“Do Crim.R. 33, 47 and 57(B), and applicable local rules, permit a trial court to deny a motion for leave to move for a new trial without a hearing, when that motion is premised upon:

“(1) the discovery of new evidence and is made later than one hundred twenty days after the verdict is rendered,-or

“(2) being unavoidably prevented from filing the motion and is made later than fourteen days after the verdict is rendered,

“and affidavits attached to the motion for leave to move for a new trial support the assertion that the movant was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence or timely filing a motion for a new trial.”

Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.

The conflict case is State v. Wright (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 827, 588 N.E.2d 930.