Ohio Supreme Court holds Civil Rule available when no applicable Criminal Rule

The Ohio Supreme Court also held Wednesday that “the plain language of Criminal Rule 57(B) states that a trial judge may look to the state’s Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance when no rule of criminal procedure is applicable to a motion made by a party in a criminal case.” ( Decision)( Court’s summary)

The case centers around a conviction of aggravated murder in 1993, and sentenced of life in prison with parole eligibility after 20 years. The conviction was affirmed that next year, with the Supreme Court dening it.

Two postconviction petitions were then filed, but denied by the trial court, and, eventually, by the appeals court. The Supreme Court also refused to hear these.

The defendant then filed a motion for a new trial in 2002, which was granted but resulted in his again being found guilty of aggravated murder, and sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility in 15 years. The 11th. District Court of Appeals upheld this conviction. as well ( See here)

Then, on March 16, 2005, a motion for relief from judgment under Civil Rule 60(B), was filed pro se, alleging prosecutorial misconduct in both of his trials and his having been subjected to double jeopardy; requesting a reversal of conviction and dismissal of the indictment with prejudice

The trial court there interpreted the motion as a petition for postconviction relief and dismissed it as not having been filed in a timing manner. Now on appeal, the 11th. District affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the motion, but certified the case to the Supreme Court as being in conflict with a 2004 ruling by the 1st District Court of Appeals here in Hamilton County which had held that a criminal defendant was eleigible to seek relief from a trial court judgment under Civ.R. 60(B) and that the trial court had, in fact, exceeded its authority by re-casting and dealing with the motion as a petition for postconviction relief. This was the Court’s resolution of that conflict.