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. Wade

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District

August 27, 2019

State of Ohio, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Jordyn Wade, Defendant-Appellant.

          APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas C.P.C. No. 15CR-6266

         On brief:

          Ron O'Brien, Prosecuting Attorney, and Seth L. Gilbert, for appellee.

          Kinsley Law Office, and Jennifer M. Kinsley, for appellant.

         Argued:

          Seth L. Gilbert.

          Jennifer M. Kinsley.

          DECISION

          LUPER SCHUSTER, J.

         {¶ 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.

         I. 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, 2018-Ohio-976.

         {¶ 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. 18AP-848 ...


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.