Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga
Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas Case No. CR-11-551296-A
Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting
Attorney, and Mary M. Frey and Frank Romeo Zeleznikar,
Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Kimberly Kendall Corrall, for appellant
JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION
RAYMOND C. HEADEN, J.
1} Defendant Rondell L. Hill ("Hill")
appeals the trial court's judgment denying his motion for
leave to file a delayed motion for new trial ("2018
motion for leave"). For the reasons that follow, we
I. Factual and Procedural History
2} Hill was indicted on June 20, 2011, for the June
2, 2011 shooting death of Tyrone Spence ("Spence")
and was charged with one count of aggravated murder in
violation of R.C. 2903.01(A), with firearm specifications.
The matter proceeded to a jury trial on April 4, 2012. The
state argued that Spence was driven to Hill's house by
Damon Taylor ("Taylor") to collect money owed to
Spence by Hill. The state further argued that Hill shot
Spence in the street following a verbal argument. Taylor was
present when the shooting occurred and testified at trial as
a state's witness. Hill was convicted on April 5, 2012,
of aggravated murder, with firearm specifications, and was
sentenced to 30 years to life imprisonment plus 3 years on
the firearm specification.
3} On appeal, we found that there was insufficient
evidence to establish that Hill acted with prior calculation
and design and modified Hill's conviction from aggravated
murder to murder and remanded the case for resentencing.
State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98366,
2013-Ohio-578, discretionary appeal disallowed, State v.
Hill, 136 Ohio St.3d 1450, 2013-Ohio-3210, 991 N.E.2d
257. Hill was resentenced on September 19, 2013, to a total
of 18 years to life imprisonment.
4} Hill appealed from the resentencing hearing on
October 13, 2013, and we affirmed. State v. Hill,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100536, 2014-Ohio-3416. Hill also
filed a motion to reopen his direct appeal; that motion was
denied. State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98366,
5} Hill filed a pro se motion for leave to file a
delayed motion for new trial on July 17, 2014 ("pro se
motion for leave"). Hill claimed he recently obtained
newly discovered exculpatory eyewitness evidence from Myles
McCollum ("McCollum") that the state failed to
provide at trial. Hill presented McCollum's affidavit
dated April 16, 2014 ("McCollum 2014 affidavit"),
that averred: (1) Hill was at the scene of the shooting, but
he did not possess a weapon, and (2) Hill ran past
McCollum's home while three to four gunshots were being
fired. McCollum, who was incarcerated at the time of
Hill's initial trial, was transported from the Richland
Correctional Institution to testify regarding these
observations on June 2, 2011, but he was never called to
testify at Hill's trial. Hill also argued the state's
failure to provide McCollum's statement constituted a
The state challenged that McCollum's testimony was always
discoverable by Hill because McCollum's name was on a
witness list; McCollum was subpoenaed to appear at trial; an
order of transport was issued for McCollum's presence at
trial; and McCollum's name was mentioned during voir dire
as a potential witness. Further, Hill's statement to the
police corroborated McCollum's affidavit because Hill
told the police he ran past the home of his friend after the
7} We found there was no evidence to demonstrate
Hill lacked knowledge of McCollum's statements or that
Hill could not have discovered McCollum's statements with
due diligence. State v. Hill, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
102083, 2015-Ohio-1652. Accordingly, we affirmed the trial
court's denial of Hill's pro se motion for leave. We
also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion when
it failed to hold a hearing on Hill's pro se motion for
8} On August 6, 2018, Hill, represented by counsel,
filed his 2018 motion for leave alleging the discovery of
newly found evidence depicted by the affidavits of McCollum,
Taylor, and Christian Potts ("Potts").
9} Hill presented McCollum's 2014 affidavit that
was attached to Hill's pro se motion for leave plus a
newly executed affidavit prepared on April 27, 2018
("McCollum 2018 affidavit"). McCollum's two
affidavits essentially present the same information
indicating that on the day of Spence's murder, Hill and
Spence did not argue; Hill did not possess a weapon; and upon
hearing gun shots, Hill ran from the scene of the shooting.
The McCollum 2018 affidavit adds that McCollum did not know
Spence and he never met a member of Hill's defense team.
10} Taylor's affidavit dated April 13, 2017,
recants his trial testimony that stated (1) Hill and Spence
argued on the date of the shooting, (2) Hill shot Spence, and
(3) Hill put a gun in his waistband after shooting Spence.
Taylor purports that the prosecutors threatened to charge him
with Spence's murder unless he identified Hill as the
11} Potts's affidavit, executed on June 28,
2018, alleges he was present at the time of the shooting.
Potts saw an unidentified black male appear from the side of
an abandoned house and speak with Spence. Hill backed away
from the two men - Spence and the unidentified black male -
and Potts then heard gun shots. Spence fell to the ground.
Hill did not have a gun. Potts does not know the name of the
man who shot Spence.
12} On February 5, 2019, without holding a hearing,
the trial court denied Hill's 2018 motion for leave. On
February 27, 2019, Hill filed a timely notice of appeal,
presenting the following verbatim assignments of error for
Assignment of Error I: The Trial Court abused its
discretion in failing to grant leave with a finding that
Appellant was unavoidably prevented from receiving the
discovery of the evidence upon which he relies
Assignment of Error II: The Court Abused its
discretion when it failed to Grant a New Trial Motion on The
Grounds of Newly Discovered Evidence
Assignment of Error III: The Trial Court Erred in
Failing to Grant a New Trial Where McCollum's Cumulative
Evidence Violates Brady
Assignment of Error IV: The Trial Court Abused Its
Discretion in Failing to Grant Appellant a Hearing, As A
Hearing on A Motion Based on Newly Discovered Evidence is
Expressly Required Under Criminal Rule 33