from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No.
O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for
Kinsley Law Office, and Jennifer M. Kinsley, for appellant.
Jennifer M. Kinsley.
1} Defendant-appellant, Jordyn Wade, appeals from a
decision and entry of the Franklin County Court of Common
Pleas denying his motion for a new trial. For the following
reasons, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
2} In 2015, plaintiff-appellee, State of Ohio,
charged Wade with being a delinquent youth for his role in a
quadruple homicide. The juvenile court bound Wade's case
over to the trial court, and the trial court tried Wade as an
adult. Following a jury trial, Wade was convicted of multiple
counts of aggravated murder, murder, attempted murder,
aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery, kidnapping, and
accompanying firearm and criminal-gang specifications. Wade
appealed, and this court affirmed his convictions but
remanded the matter to the trial court for resentencing.
State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No. 16AP-674,
3} While his direct appeal was still pending before
this court, Wade filed in the trial court a motion for new
trial. In his motion, Wade asserted he had newly discovered
evidence that could not have been produced at trial in the
form of an affidavit from his codefendant, Robert Adams, in
which Adams avers Wade did not participate in the crimes for
which he was convicted. The state opposed Wade's motion
for new trial.
4} In an October 1, 2018 decision and entry, the
trial court denied Wade's motion for new trial. In its
decision, the trial court noted Wade's motion for new
trial was untimely under the parameters of Crim.R. 33 and
that Wade failed to seek leave to file a delayed motion for
new trial. The trial court concluded Wade's motion was
not well-taken based on his failure to first seek leave to
file the delayed motion for new trial. Moreover, the trial
court concluded that even if it were to construe Wade's
motion, itself, as the motion for leave, Wade did not
demonstrate that he was unavoidably prevented from
discovering the new evidence within the 120-day time period
of Crim.R. 33, nor did Wade demonstrate that the evidence
could be categorized as newly discovered evidence. Finally,
the trial court noted Wade waited 203 days after Adams
executed his affidavit to file his motion for new trial.
Thus, the trial court concluded Wade did not file his motion
for new trial within a "reasonable time" after
discovering the alleged new evidence. (Decision & Entry
at 13.) Based on all these reasons, the trial court denied
Wade's motion for new trial.
5} After missing the deadline for a timely appeal,
Wade filed a motion for leave to file delayed appeal that
this court granted. State v. Wade, 10th Dist. No.