The Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's failure to obtain proper leave before filing an untimely motion for a new trial provides sufficient grounds for denial, affirming a lower court decision in *State v. McAlpin* (2026-Ohio-148).
The case involves Joseph McAlpin, who was sentenced to death in 2019 for two murders. McAlpin sought a new trial based on newly discovered evidence but failed to follow proper procedural requirements under Ohio Criminal Rule 33.
Chief Justice Kennedy authored the unanimous opinion, joined by Justices Fischer, DeWine, Brunner, Deters, Hawkins, and Shanahan. The court examined whether the trial court erred in denying McAlpin's motion for a new trial.
Under Ohio Criminal Rule 33, defendants seeking a new trial must file their motion within specific time limits. When a motion is filed after these deadlines, defendants must first obtain leave from the court. The rule is designed to ensure orderly post-conviction proceedings and prevent indefinite delays in finalizing criminal cases.
McAlpin's motion was based on newly discovered evidence, a common ground for seeking new trials in criminal cases. However, the timing of his filing created procedural hurdles that ultimately proved fatal to his request.
The court held that McAlpin's failure to obtain the required leave before filing his untimely Criminal Rule 33 motion constituted sufficient reason to affirm the trial court's denial. This ruling reinforces the importance of strict adherence to procedural requirements in criminal post-conviction proceedings.
The decision emphasizes that even potentially meritorious claims for relief can be defeated by procedural deficiencies. Courts have consistently held that procedural rules serve important purposes in the criminal justice system, including finality of judgments and efficient case management.
The case originated in Cuyahoga County and was appealed through the Eighth District Court of Appeals before reaching the Ohio Supreme Court. The appeals court had previously ruled on the matter in 2023.
The Ohio Supreme Court's decision was submitted for consideration on October 28, 2025, and decided on January 21, 2026. The court noted that the case was remanded to the trial court to address McAlpin's pending motion for leave to file a motion for new trial.
This remand suggests that while the current motion was properly denied for procedural reasons, McAlpin may still have an opportunity to seek relief through proper channels. The trial court will now consider whether to grant leave for McAlpin to file his motion for a new trial.
The ruling has implications for criminal defense attorneys and defendants seeking post-conviction relief in Ohio. It underscores the critical importance of understanding and following procedural requirements when filing motions for new trials, particularly in capital cases where the stakes are highest.
Criminal Rule 33 motions for new trial are often the last resort for defendants who believe they have been wrongly convicted or sentenced. The rule allows courts to grant new trials based on various grounds, including newly discovered evidence that could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence before trial.
However, the rule's time limitations are strictly enforced. Motions must generally be filed within a specified period after trial, and late filings require court approval. The *McAlpin* decision reinforces that courts will not excuse procedural failures, even in death penalty cases.
The case also highlights the complex procedural landscape that defendants must navigate when seeking post-conviction relief. The requirement to obtain leave before filing untimely motions serves as a gatekeeping mechanism, ensuring that courts can manage their dockets while still providing avenues for legitimate claims.
For practitioners, the decision serves as a reminder to carefully review procedural requirements before filing any post-conviction motions. The consequences of procedural errors can be severe, particularly in capital cases where defendants face the ultimate penalty.
The unanimous nature of the decision suggests broad agreement among the justices regarding the importance of procedural compliance. This consensus strengthens the precedential value of the ruling and indicates that similar procedural challenges are likely to face the same fate.
Moving forward, the trial court will consider McAlpin's pending motion for leave to file. This proceeding will determine whether he can pursue his new trial motion through proper procedural channels. The outcome of that hearing could potentially revive his claims, though he must still demonstrate that leave should be granted under the applicable standards.