719 N.E.2d 967
No. 99-1883.Supreme Court of Ohio.
November 24, 1999.
MOTION DOCKET
Appeal from Summit App. No. 19179.
On review of order certifying a conflict. The court determines that a conflict exists; the parties are to brief the issues stated in the court of appeals’ Journal Entry filed September 22, 1999, at page 3:
“Because we find our decision in this case in conflict with the decision of the Second Appellate District in Wright [below], we certify the following question for review:
“Do Crim.R. 33, 47 and 57(B), and applicable local rules, permit a trial court to deny a motion for leave to move for a new trial without a hearing, when that motion is premised upon:
“(1) the discovery of new evidence and is made later than one hundred twenty days after the verdict is rendered, or
“(2) being unavoidably prevented from filing the motion and is made later than fourteen days after the verdict is rendered,
“and affidavits attached to the motion for leave to move for a new trial support the assertion that the movant was unavoidably prevented from timely discovering the evidence or timely filing a motion for a new trial.”
Douglas, Resnick and F.E. Sweeney, JJ., dissent.
The conflict case is State v. Wright (1990), 67 Ohio App.3d 827, 588 N.E.2d 930.