Skip to content Skip to main navigation Skip to footer
Ohio Case Law

State v. Kenney, 2025-Ohio-4841

Case Information

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio Eighth Appellate District County of Cuyahoga
Date: 2025-10-23
Citation: 2025-Ohio-4841
Read the Opinion

Summary

Summary: The Court of Appeals of Ohio affirmed the denial of Defendant-Appellant’s successive and untimely petition for postconviction relief, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the defendant failed to establish that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence or that the State suppressed it in violation of Brady.

Key Holdings

  • A trial court lacks jurisdiction to hear untimely or successive postconviction petitions unless the petitioner meets strict statutory exceptions
  • Petitioners must show they were unavoidably prevented from discovering new evidence with reasonable diligence
  • Witness recantations must include specific facts to justify delayed discovery to satisfy the statutory exception
  • Alleged Brady violations must be supported by evidence that the State suppressed material information not previously available to the defense
  • Claims that could have been raised in earlier proceedings are barred by res judicata

More Information

Defendant-Appellant was convicted in 2001 for aggravated murder and kidnapping and sentenced to life in prison with parole eligibility after 30 years. His conviction was based primarily on witness testimony of his own incriminating statements. The appellate court upheld the conviction on direct appeal and dismissed multiple postconviction filings over the years, including habeas corpus claims.

In 2023, Appellant filed a successive petition for postconviction relief, alleging that newly discovered affidavits and police reports proved that critical witnesses were coerced or unreliable and that exculpatory evidence implicating alternative suspects had been suppressed. These documents included recantations, statements about the Appellant’s alleged whereabouts at the time of the crime, and claims of police misconduct.

The appellate court held that Appellant failed to meet the requirements of R.C. 2953.23(A)(1). It emphasized that the petition lacked specific evidence that Appellant was unavoidably prevented from discovering the facts earlier. Additionally, the recanting witnesses’ affidavits lacked sufficient detail to demonstrate when or how the new evidence became available. The court also found the Brady claim unpersuasive, citing a lack of proof that the police reports or statements were actually withheld from trial counsel.

Ultimately, the court ruled that the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition without a hearing because the statutory criteria for an exception to the jurisdictional bar were not met. As a result, the assignments of error were overruled and the original judgment was affirmed.