from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No.
O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for
Shaughn C. Boone, pro se.
1} Defendant-appellant, Shaughn C. Boone, appeals
from a judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas
denying his motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.
For the following reasons, we affirm that judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
2} In 1998, a jury found appellant guilty of four
counts of felonious assault and accompanying firearm
specifications. The trial court sentenced appellant
accordingly. On appeal, this court affirmed those
convictions. State v. Boone, 10th Dist. No. 98AP-352
(Dec. 24, 1998).
3} In the years that followed, appellant filed
multiple post-conviction motions. The present appeal concerns
appellant's motion for leave to file a motion for new
trial that he filed in 2014. In that motion, appellant
requested leave of the trial court to file an untimely motion
for new trial pursuant to Crim.R. 33(B). In his
separately-filed motion for new trial, appellant argued that
he was innocent of the charges and requested a new trial
pursuant to Crim.R. 33(A)(6), which provides for a new trial
if evidence material to the defense is discovered which the
defendant could not with reasonable diligence have discovered
and produced at trial. With that motion, appellant filed an
affidavit from his half-brother, which appellant claimed
exonerated him of the charges. Appellant alleged that he was
unavoidably prevented from timely filing his motion because
he did not know that a claim of actual innocence could be
made in a motion for new trial. The trial court denied
appellant's motion for leave to file an untimely motion
for new trial on res judicata grounds.
4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following
[1.] Whether the trial court abused its discretion thereby
violating both due process and fundamental fairness, U.S.C.A.
Const. Amends. 6 and 14, when it denied (without hearing)
appellant's properly pled and substantively supported
motion for leave to file delayed motion for new trial
pursuant to Crim.R. 33.
[2.] Whether the doctrine of res judicata is applicable [in]
cases where the underlying judgment is contrary to law,
and/or where such judgment must be disavowed on the basis of
newly discovered exculpatory evidence demonstrating a
fundamental miscarriage of justice.
A Motion for New Trial Based on Newly ...