The Supreme Court of Ohio today affirmed a trial court’s rejection of a new trial request submitted in 2019 by a man sentenced to death for two murders committed while robbing a Cleveland used-car dealership.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that Joseph McAlpin failed to follow procedural rules when requesting a new trial in August 2019. His attempts to correct his filing errors in 2020 did not cure his mistake, the Court ruled. However, the Court directed the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to consider his additional efforts to secure a new trial.

Writing for the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy explained that when a criminal defendant requests a new trial made more than 120 days after conviction, there is a two-step process he or she must take. Because McAlpin did not follow that process, former Judge Brian Corrigan correctly denied McAlpin’s motion for a new trial, she explained.

The ruling affirmed a decision by the Eighth District Court of Appeals upholding the denial of McAlpin’s motion for a new trial, but on different grounds. The Eighth District also addressed and rejected McAlpin’s 2020 filings for a new trial. The Supreme Court did not consider the Eighth District’s ruling on the 2020 motions but instead remanded the matter for the common pleas court to address.

Inmate Files Several Appeals After Conviction
McAlpin represented himself at his 2019 trial, where he was accused of the shooting deaths of two people at a used-car dealership in Cleveland. A jury found him guilty of aggravated murder, and he was sentenced to death. In May 2022, the Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and death sentence.

Citing Rule 33(A)(6) of the Ohio Rules of Criminal Procedure, McAlpin filed a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. He submitted the motion 126 days after the verdict. Under the rule, any request for a new trial after 120 days requires a two-step process, which begins by first obtaining leave, or permission, from the trial court to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

McAlpin did not request leave but directly requested a new trial. The trial judge did not rule on McAlpin’s request and would not issue a ruling until May 2021.

As the new trial request was pending, McAlpin filed a motion for leave, as required by Rule 33(A)(6), in February 2020. He then followed up by filing a “supplemental” new trial motion in April 2020. The April 2020 motion was almost identical to the August 2019 motion and contained McAlpin’s reasoning for why he believed he deserved a new trial.

In May 2021, when the trial court had not ruled on any of his motions, McAlpin sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court, asking it to direct the trial judge to rule on the February 2020 motion for leave, which would be the proper motion under the rules to request a new trial.

Days later, Judge Corrigan issued a ruling denying McAlpin’s 2019 motion for a new trial. Judge Corrigan also requested that the Supreme Court dismiss McAlpin’s request for the writ, which it did.

Offender Appeals Trial Court Denial
McAlpin appealed Judge Corrigan’s ruling to the Eighth District. He argued that before denying the motion for a new trial, the judge should have first considered his motion for leave filed in February 2020. While the motions were filed out of order, McAlpin maintained that the judge should have considered them as if he filed them in the order outlined in Rule 33(A)(6).

The Eighth District addressed both the motion for leave and the motion for a new trial. The appeals court ruled that when Judge Corrigan denied the August 2019 motion, he “implicitly denied” the motion for leave that was filed out of order. The appeals court also addressed the merits of the motion for leave that McAlpin filed with Judge Corrigan.

The Eighth District found that McAlpin failed to meet a key requirement by not proving he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence within 120 days of the verdict convicting him of the crimes.

McAlpin appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the appeals court had no authority to dispose of his case until the trial court fully concluded the two-step process of considering his motion for a new trial.

Supreme Court Analyzed New Trial Request Rules
Chief Justice Kennedy explained that McAlpin failed to follow the two-step process when he initiated his quest for a new trial, and his actual motions filed later do not match his claims that he requested the trial court to rule on his initial August 2019 filing.

The opinion explained that while Rule (33)(B) does not expressly require a defendant to file a motion for leave, the Court has consistently ruled that a motion for leave is required. The Court noted that the reasoning is based on the rule’s requirement that a defendant show by clear and convincing proof that any newly discovered evidence could not be obtained within 120 days of a verdict. It is only once a judge finds that a defendant was unavoidably prevented from discovering that evidence that a trial court can consider a motion for a new trial.

McAlpin did not seek leave in 2019 to file his motion for a new trial, so the trial court correctly denied his August 2019 motion, the Court concluded.

When analyzing his February 2020 motion for leave, the Court pointed out that McAlpin had incorrectly argued that the motion was related to his August 2019 motion. Instead, the Court ruled that his February 2020 motion describes his “supplemental motion” filed in April 2020.

“Accordingly, based on the evidence in the record, McAlpin did not seek leave to file the motion for new trial at issue in this appeal,” the opinion stated.

The Supreme Court did not address McAlpin’s claim that the Eighth District overstepped its authority when it dismissed his 2020 efforts to obtain a new trial. Instead, the Court directed the common pleas court to determine whether McAlpin met the first step of the two-step process by proving that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within 120 days of his conviction.

2024-0749. State v. McAlpin, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-148.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.