Login | March 28, 2025
Appellate panel upholds rejection of man’s request for a new trial
KEITH ARNOLD
Special to the Legal News
Published: March 20, 2025
A Fifth District Court of Appeals panel upheld a trial court’s denial of a southwest Columbus man’s motion for postconviction relief and a new trial related to his conviction in 2021 on charges of aggravated robbery and kidnapping.
The appellate panel found that the Delaware County Common Pleas Court ruled correctly that 44-year-old Kenneth Lewis’ motion––filed Sept. 27, 2024–– was an untimely and successive petition for postconviction relief.
The lower court also held that the claims Lewis raised were either raised or could have been raised in direct appeal and were barred by res judicata.
“R.C. 2953.21(A)(2) states a petition for postconviction relief shall be filed no later than 365 days after the date on which the trial transcript is filed in the court of appeals in the direct appeal of the judgment of conviction,” Fifth District Judge Andrew King wrote for the panel. “Here, the transcripts were filed in Lewis’ direct appeal on Aug. 30, 2021. His latest postconviction motion was filed more than three years later.”
King noted exceptions may be made in instances in which the defendant provides evidence or other information that was unavailable earlier and makes an argument that the new information would change the outcome of the appeal.
“Lewis once again failed to provide any reason for the delay in filing, and he failed to satisfy the statutory exceptions to the untimely filing,” King continued. “A petitioner’s failure to satisfy the R.C. 2953.23(A) requirements deprives a trial court of jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of an untimely or successive postconviction petition.”
According to case background, a Delaware County grand jury indicted Lewis on Sept. 18, 2020, on one count of aggravated robbery and two counts of kidnapping, with accompanying firearm and repeat violent offender specifications on each count.
The charges arose from the robbery of a pawn shop while employees were present.
At the conclusion of Lewis’ trial, which began on Jan. 12, 2021, the jury found him guilty on all counts, except for the firearm specifications, summary continued.
By judgment entry filed March 10, 2021, the trial court sentenced Lewis to an aggregate term of 33 to 38.5 years in prison.
Lewis appealed, arguing that the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted an improperly authenticated surveillance video of the suspect and a surprise witness �" two pieces of evidence used to link him to the crime.
He also argued that the evidence was legally insufficient and that the trial court should have merged his aggravated robbery offense with his kidnapping offenses.
The Fifth District appeals court reviewed the appeal and affirmed his convictions and sentence.
Lewis subsequently filed numerous motions to reopen his direct appeal, reconsider the ruling and for leave to seek delayed reconsideration, which were all denied, background provided.
The Ohio Supreme Court also denied the man’s motion for delayed appeal.
On May 2, 2024, Lewis filed with the trial court a motion to vacate the judgment, and the court denied the motion later that month.
Additionally, the lower court held that Lewis presented no new post-trial evidence or other new information that might justify his effort to present his claims three years after he filed his direct appeal.
He mounted another appeal to the Fifth District, which once again affirmed the lower court.
On Sept. 27, 2024, Lewis filed at the lower court a motion for leave to file a motion for postconviction relief to vacate or set aside judgment of conviction and sentence and a motion for a new trial on the basis that trial counsel was ineffective.
The common pleas court denied the motion in a judgment entry filed Oct. 3, 2024, prompting the current appeal.
“Lewis failed to rely on any information outside the record that would support his claims,” King continued. “The documents attached to Lewis’ motion were available to him before trial; he was not unavoidably prevented from seeing them. Further, none of the documents established a substantial violation of any of trial counsel’s essential duties in addition to prejudice arising from that ineffectiveness.”
Presiding Fifth District Presiding Judge William Hoffman and Judge Robert Montgomery joined King’s decision.
Copyright © 2025 The Daily Reporter - All Rights Reserved