Portage County Legal News

Court of appeals denies new trial for convicted murder

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: April 15, 2014

The 10th District Court of Appeals recently rejected a man’s claims that he was entitled to a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and affirmed the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas ruling.

John Graggs argued pro se before the three-judge appellate panel that he had discovered a new witness to testify on his behalf in the case charging him with two counts of aggravated murder.

Case summary states that Graggs was convicted on those charges, as well as charges of aggravated robbery and kidnapping in January 2009.

The convictions stemmed from the shooting death of Fred Brock.

The state presented evidence that Brock had been hired to secure an apartment in which two drug dealers could sell their product.

Brock’s body was found in that apartment on Jan. 8, 2008.

He was lying face down on the floor, handcuffed with two gunshot wounds in his back and one in his head.

A jury in the common pleas court found Graggs guilty of the murder and its accompanying charges and sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The trial court denied Graggs’ motion for a new trial and the 10th District affirmed that decision.

In August 2013, Graggs moved for leave to file a motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence.

To support that motion, he claimed that a law library clerk at his correctional center pointed him to Kelvin Bridges after overhearing Bridges discussing Brock’s murder.

An affidavit from Bridges stated that he was in an apartment with his drug dealer and Brock shortly before the murder.

He stated that the dealer and Brock had a disagreement in which the dealer accused Brock of using cocaine meant for sale.

“In his motion, appellant suggested that the information provided by Bridges demonstrated a motive for (a drug dealer) to kill Brock and would establish that appellant could not have committed the murder,” case summary stated.

Still, the common pleas court found that Graggs failed to show that he was prevented from finding the new evidence in a timely manner and denied his motion.

Graggs then took the matter to the appellate panel.

“The defendant must prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the new evidence,” Judge Julia Dorrian wrote for the court.

The judges found that the affidavits Graggs presented offered “little evidence” to show that he was unavoidably prevented from discovering the evidence within the time for filing a motion for a new trial.

They determined that the law library clerk attested that Bridges told him he did not know Graggs and Graggs had agreed that Bridges name did not sound familiar.

“As the trial court concluded, these statements suggest that Graggs may not have known prior to July 2013 that Bridges potentially had information relating to the night of the murder. However, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion by finding that the affidavits did not constitute clear and convincing evidence to establish that appellant could not have learned of the existence of the information Bridges claimed to possess within the time prescribed for filing a motion for new trial,” Judge Dorrian continued.

Finding that the trial court acted within its discretion, Presiding Judge Lisa Sadler and Judge Susan Brown joined Judge Dorrian to affirm its ruling.

The case is cited State v. Graggs, 2014-Ohio-1195.

[Back]