The Ohio Court of Appeals recently affirmed the conviction of Kirmarey Ellington in a ruling that addressed the procedural requirements for filing a motion for a new trial. The court's decision, issued on September 30, 2026, impacts Ellington and his legal standing following his conviction for serious crimes, including aggravated burglary and robbery.
The court's ruling is significant because it clarifies the necessary steps a defendant must take when seeking a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adhering to legal procedures in the appeals process.
Background
Kirmarey Ellington was convicted in May 2017 for aggravated burglary, two counts of aggravated robbery, and related gun specifications. His conviction stemmed from a home invasion where victims identified him as the intruder. The case was primarily focused on the identity of the perpetrator, with one victim recognizing Ellington from a photograph on social media.
After his conviction, Ellington's appeal was initially rejected by the Ohio Court of Appeals in September 2018. Fast forward to eight years later, in January 2025, Ellington filed a motion for a new trial, claiming he had newly discovered evidence that could potentially exonerate him. He argued that the State had suppressed the identity of a hearsay declarant, which he believed could have influenced the trial's outcome.
The Ruling
The Ohio Court of Appeals, led by Judge Bock, ruled that Ellington's motion for a new trial was improperly filed. The court emphasized that Ellington did not seek and obtain leave to file his delayed motion as required by Criminal Rule 33(B). The court stated, "A defendant must file a new-trial motion based on newly discovered evidence within 120 days after the jury’s verdict, unless the defendant offers clear and convincing proof that the defendant was unavoidably prevented from the discovery of the evidence upon which he must rely within that period."
Because Ellington failed to comply with the mandatory procedure outlined in the rule, the court affirmed the trial court's decision to deny his motion. The court noted that even if Ellington's claims had merit, the lack of adherence to procedural rules was sufficient to uphold the trial court's judgment.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for defendants seeking new trials in Ohio. It underscores the necessity of following the correct legal procedures when filing motions for a new trial. The court's decision reinforces that failure to obtain permission before filing a delayed motion can lead to automatic dismissal, regardless of the merits of the case.
Ellington's case serves as a cautionary tale for others in similar situations, highlighting the importance of understanding and navigating the legal system effectively. The ruling may also influence future cases involving motions for new trials based on newly discovered evidence.
What's Next
Ellington's options for appeal appear limited at this stage. The court's decision is final unless he can present a compelling reason for further appeal, which details were not available in the court filing. As of now, there are no related cases pending that could affect this ruling.