Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Boone

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

March 9, 2017

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Shaughn C. Boone, Defendant-Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas (C.P.C. No. 97CR03-1639)

         On brief:

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Steven L. Taylor, for appellee.

          Shaughn C. Boone, pro se.

          DECISION

          KLATT, J.

         {¶ 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.

         I. 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.

         II. Appellant's Appeal

         {¶ 4} Appellant appeals and assigns the following errors:

[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.

         III. A Motion for New Trial Based on Newly ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.