Court Opinion

ID: 9894281
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 13:08:18.225275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:31.136112
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Smith, 2023-Ohio-3954.]

                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
                   FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT OF OHIO
                             HAMILTON COUNTY, OHIO

 STATE OF OHIO,                             :        APPEAL NO. C-220583
                                                     TRIAL NO. B-1505510
         Plaintiff-Appellee,                :
                                                          O P I N I O N.
   vs.                                      :

 WILLIAM A. SMITH, SR.,                     :

       Defendant-Appellant.                 :

Criminal Appeal From: Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas

Judgment Appealed From Is: Affirmed

Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: November 1, 2023

Melissa A. Powers, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Philip R. Cummings,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Plaintiff-Appellee,

William A. Smith, Sr., pro se.
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

CROUSE, Presiding Judge.

       {¶1}    Defendant-appellant William A. Smith, Sr., appeals the Hamilton

County Common Pleas Court’s judgment denying his Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave

to file a motion for a new trial. We affirm.

                                            I.

       {¶2}    Following a jury trial in 2017, Smith was convicted of two counts of

aggravated murder, felonious assault with firearm and repeat-violent-offender

specifications, aggravated robbery, and two counts of having a weapon while under a

disability. At trial, he admitted to killing his two elderly friends, but claimed it was in

self-defense. Smith unsuccessfully challenged his convictions in his direct appeal and

in a 2018 petition for postconviction relief. See State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.

C-170028, 2018-Ohio-2504 (affirming convictions, but remanding for consecutive-

sentences findings); State v. Smith, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-190162, 2020-Ohio-1370

(court lacked jurisdiction to consider petition where petitioner could not demonstrate

unavoidable prevention in discovering evidence supporting claims).

       {¶3}    In September 2021, Smith moved for leave to file a new-trial motion on

the following grounds:       irregularity in the proceedings, see Crim.R. 33(A)(1),

prosecutorial misconduct, see Crim.R. 33(A)(2), and an error of law occurring at trial,

see Crim.R. 33(A)(5). Insofar as we can ascertain, Smith argues that the investigating

detectives had Smith’s “discharge papers” from the hospital (Smith was treated for

injuries he had sustained during his attack on the victims) and these medical records

demonstrate his “state of mind” the day of the murder. Smith contends that his

discharge papers as well as items contained in his case file maintained by his trial

counsel support his claim of self-defense and prove that witnesses committed perjury

at his trial. In support of his motion, Smith attached (1) motions from July and August

of 2018 seeking permission to file a public-records request for the recording of his

April 2018 telephone conversation with his trial counsel, the list of exhibits from his

                                                 2
                 OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

jury trial, and all “court related documentation listed on the docket sheet and related

to said case No. B-1505510”; (2) an October 2018 motion to compel his attorney to

produce his case file; (3) a January 2019 motion to compel the common pleas court to

rule on his public-records request; (4) two notices from the clerk of courts indicating

that it had received Smith’s request for public records; (5) several “notices of

withholding” from the prison mailroom indicating that Smith had received the

“discovery he requested” but it was more than the allowed five-page limit and was

being returned to sender; (6) a “withdrawal slip” showing that money had been

deducted from Smith’s prison account to return documents to the sender; (7) a letter

from a family member’s attorney discussing a request to send “case documents” to

Smith; (8) a prison conduct report; (9) excerpts from Smith’s interview with police at

the hospital; (10) Smith’s emergency-room medical records from the day of the

murders indicating that “pt does not want to talk to the police”; and (11) three

photographs showing blood stains and a picture of a neck wound.

       {¶4}   The common pleas court summarily denied the motion for leave to file

a new-trial motion, and Smith timely appealed.

                                             II.

       {¶5}   In a single assignment of error, Smith argues that the common pleas

court “erred as a matter of law by abusing its discretion in overruling without an

evidentiary hearing defendant’s Crim.R. 33(B) motion for leave to file a Crim.R.

33(A)(1)(2) and (5) [motion for new trial].” We are unpersuaded.

       {¶6}   We review the denial of a Crim.R. 33(B) motion without an evidentiary

hearing for an abuse of discretion. State v. Hatton, 169 Ohio St.3d 446, 2022-Ohio-

3991, 205 N.E.3d 513, ¶ 29; State v. Mincy, 1st Dist. Hamilton No. C-060041, 2007-

Ohio-1316, ¶ 16. An abuse of discretion is more than an error of law or judgment; it

implies that the court’s attitude is unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable. Id.,

citing Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217, 219, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).

                                              3
                  OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

       {¶7}   A motion for new trial under Crim.R. 33(A)(1), (2) and (5) must be filed

within 14 days of the verdict “unless it is made to appear by clear and convincing proof

that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from filing his motion for new trial * *

*.” Crim.R. 33(B). “Unavoidably prevented” means “the party had no knowledge of

the existence of the ground supporting the motion for new trial and could not have

learned of the existence of that ground within the time prescribed for filing the motion

for new trial in the exercise of reasonable diligence.” State v. McKnight, 2021-Ohio-

2673, 176 N.E.3d 802 (4th Dist.), ¶ 11, citing State v. Walden, 19 Ohio App.3d 141, 145-

146, 483 N.E.2d 859 (10th Dist.1984). In determining whether a defendant has

exercised reasonable diligence, the defendant must describe all investigative actions

undertaken within the 14-day period for timely filing a Crim.R. 33(A)(1), (2) and (5)

motion and why he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the grounds for his

new-trial motion before that time period had elapsed. See State v. Cashin, 10th Dist.

Franklin No. 17AP-338, 2017-Ohio-9289, ¶ 17.

       {¶8}   Smith’s jury verdict was entered on January 23, 2017. He did not file

his motion for a new trial until four years later. Smith argues that he was unavoidably

prevented from filing his new-trial motion until now because he only recently received

his case file from counsel. It is unclear what documents Smith received other than his

medical records from his emergency-room visit the day of the murders and some

exhibits from his trial, including photographs of the injuries to the victims and himself.

But we hold that Smith has not demonstrated that he was unavoidably prevented from

obtaining this information and, in turn, discovering the grounds of his new-trial

motion until recently. All the information or evidence, namely Smith’s medical records

and exhibits from his trial, were in existence and available to Smith at trial and within

14 days following the jury’s verdict, regardless of whether he sought to access the

information at that time. His evidence of unavoidable prevention merely shows that

he sought to access the information in his case beginning in July 2018, not that he was

                                                4
                   OHIO FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

prevented from accessing that information during the time prescribed to file a motion

for a new trial.

                                             III.

       {¶9}    Because Smith was not unavoidably prevented from discovering the

grounds of his new-trial motion within the appropriate timeframe, we overrule his

single assignment of error and affirm the common pleas court’s judgment.

                                                                   Judgment affirmed.

BERGERON and KINSLEY, JJ., concur.

Please note:

       The court has recorded its own entry on the date of the release of this opinion.

                                              5