Bookmark this page on your mobile

QR Code image

What is this?

Daily Court Reporter - News Man’s wrongful imprisonment claim can continue

 

Man’s wrongful imprisonment claim can continue

Dan Trevas, Supreme Court of Ohio

Over the objections of the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office, the common pleas court does have jurisdiction over a former death-row inmate’s claim that he was wrongfully imprisoned and is entitled to state compensation, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

In a per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court rejected a request from Prosecutor Michael O’Malley that Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Michael J. Russo cease hearing the wrongful-imprisonment claim made by Joseph D’Ambrosio.

While the Court ruled Judge Russo can consider the claim, it may be short-lived. The opinion noted that O’Malley presented a “plausible argument” that D’Ambrosio’s case is barred under the legal doctrine of res judicata.

Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor and Justices Judith L. French, Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, and Melody J. Stewart joined the opinion. Justice Sharon L. Kennedy concurred in judgment only, and Justice Michael P. Donnelly did not participate in the case.

Former Prisoner Seeks Designation

In 1989, D’Ambrosio was convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary and sentenced to death. His convictions and sentence were affirmed by the Ohio Supreme Court. But a federal court ruled in 2006 that D’Ambrosio was entitled to a new trial because the state violated the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1963 Brady v. Maryland decision by failing to disclose material evidence that could have helped his case.

After ongoing disputes between D’Ambrosio and prosecutors regarding evidence, the federal district court in 2010 barred the state from reprosecuting D’Ambrosio and was freed. In 2012, D’Ambrosio initiated a wrongful-imprisonment claim under R.C. 2743.48. The law sets up a two-step process. First, a common pleas court must rule that a person was wrongfully imprisoned and entitled to compensation. Then the person can file a lawsuit against the state in the Ohio Court of Claims to recover a sum of money.

Claim of Wrongful Imprisonment Disputed

To be declared wrongfully imprisoned, D’Ambrosio had to prove he met all five elements of R.C. 2743.48(A). The prosecutor’s office argued that D’Ambrosio failed to meet the fifth element, which requires he prove either that an “error in procedure” resulted in his release or that he did not commit the crime. D’Ambrosio argued both that he was freed because of a procedural error and that he did not commit the crimes.

The parties and trial court agreed the case would proceed in two phases. First, the court would decide whether D’Ambrosio’s procedural-error theory entitled him to prevail. If not, the court would proceed to consider the second argument that he did not commit the crimes.

The trial court found he met the law’s requirement that his release occurred because of a procedural error that took place after he was sentenced and during or after he was imprisoned. Because it agreed with D’Ambrosio’s procedural-error theory, the trial court did not review the second argument of whether D’Ambrosio committed the crime. The trial court declared in January 2013 that D’Ambrosio was wrongfully imprisoned and eligible to move on to the Court of Claims.

The prosecutor appealed the decision to the Eighth District Court of Appeals. Based on a similar case dealing with another claim for wrongful imprisonment (State v. Mansaray), the Eighth District affirmed the trial court’s ruling. The prosecutor appealed the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Ohio Supreme Court reverses Mansaray and D’Ambrosio decisions

As the D’Ambrosio case was pending, the Supreme Court reversed the Eighth District’s opinion in Mansaray in March 2014. In that case, the procedural error that led to Yanko Mansaray’s release occurred before he was sentenced to prison. Based on the language of R.C. 2743.48(A), the Supreme Court ruled a qualifying error must have happened after sentencing and during or after imprisonment.

In June 2014, based on the Mansaray decision, the Supreme Court issued a one-sentence decision reversing the declaration that D’Ambrosio was wrongfully imprisoned. D’Ambrosio asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision, arguing that his situation was not the same as Mansaray’s because the errors in his case happened both before and after he was sentenced and imprisoned. He asked the case to be remanded to Judge Russo to decide if the Mansaray decision applied. The Supreme Court denied the request.

After the reconsideration denial, Judge Russo resumed the case and scheduled a trial. In March 2016, D’Ambrosio voluntarily dismissed the case so that he could refile it later. In March 2017, he filed a new complaint making the same two arguments.

Judge Proceeds with Case, Prosecutor Objects

O’Malley objected to Judge Russo’s effort to move forward with the refiled case. The prosecutor maintained that when the Supreme Court ended the case based on Mansaray, the matter was over and D’Ambrosio could not move forward. Judge Russo rejected that argument, stating the Supreme Court’s Mansaray ruling was irrelevant because it pertained to the 2012 case, not the new 2017 case.

In its opinion today, the Court rejected Judge Russo’s conclusion that its prior ruling was irrelevant. The Court wrote that Judge Russo’s 2013 ruling was a final order and that he lost jurisdiction of the case when it was appealed to the Eighth District. Because the case no longer was pending in his court, the judge had no authority to proceed after the Supreme Court reversed his decision. The Court stated that its “final judgment of reversal remains binding on the parties.”

New Case Can Move Forward

The Court, however, did not agree with the prosecutor that Judge Russo lacks jurisdiction over D’Ambrosio’s refiled case. The opinion stated that while the doctrine of res judicata might apply to the current case, Judge Russo does have the authority to make that decision, and the prosecutor would have the right to appeal if he disagreed with Judge Russo’s assessment. The Court declined to block the case from moving forward and rejected a request from O’Malley to direct Judge Russo to rule in his favor and dismiss D’Ambrosio’s case.

The opinion can be read online at: http://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2019/SCO/0508/180996.asp#.XNQc_aR7mUk

2018-0996. State ex rel. O’Malley v. Russo, Slip Opinion No. 2019-Ohio-1698.

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.

About the Supreme Court of Ohio

The Supreme Court is established by Article IV, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution. Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution sets the size of the Court and outlines its jurisdiction. Article IV, Section 5 of the Constitution grants rule making and other authority to the Court.

The Supreme Court is the court of last resort in Ohio. Most of its cases are appeals from the 12 district courts of appeals. The Court may grant leave to appeal felony cases from the courts of appeals and may direct a court of appeals to certify its record in any civil or misdemeanor case that the Court finds to be "of public or great general interest."

The Supreme Court also has appellate jurisdiction in cases involving questions arising under the Ohio or United States Constitutions, cases originating in the courts of appeals, and cases in which there have been conflicting opinions on the same question from two or more courts of appeals. The Supreme Court hears all cases in which the death penalty has been imposed. These cases currently include both appeals from courts of appeals affirming imposition of the death penalty by a trial court and, for capital crimes committed on or after Jan. 1, 1995, appeals taken directly from the trial courts. Finally, the Supreme Court's appellate jurisdiction extends to review of the actions of certain administrative agencies, including the Public Utilities Commission.

The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction to issue extraordinary writs. These include writs of habeas corpus (inquiring into the cause of an allegedly unlawful imprisonment or deprivation of custody), writs of mandamus (ordering a public official to perform a required act), writs of procedendo (compelling a lower court to proceed to judgment in a case), writs of prohibition (ordering a lower court to stop abusing or usurping judicial functions), and writs of quo warranto (issued against a person or corporation for usurpation, misuse, or abuse of public office or corporate office or franchise).

The Constitution grants the Supreme Court exclusive authority to regulate admission to the practice of law, the discipline of attorneys admitted to practice, and all other matters relating to the practice of law. In connection with this grant of authority, the Supreme Court has promulgated the Supreme Court Rules for the Government of the Bar of Ohio. These rules address, among other things, admission to practice, attorney discipline, attorney registration, continuing legal education, and unauthorized practice of law.

The Constitution also gives the Supreme Court authority to prescribe rules governing practice and procedure in all courts of the state and to exercise general superintendence over all state courts. Procedural rules promulgated by the Supreme Court become effective unless both houses of the General Assembly adopt a concurrent resolution of disapproval. Rules of superintendence over state courts set minimum standards for court administration. Unlike procedural rules, rules of superintendence do not have to be submitted to the General Assembly to become effective.

In connection with all of the rules for which it has responsibility, the Supreme Court generally solicits public comment before adopting new rules or amendments in final form. The Court first publishes its rules and amendments in proposed form. These proposals appear in both the Ohio State Bar Association Reports and the Ohio Official Advance Sheets and indicate the period open for comment and the staff member to whom comments should be directed. The Court reviews all comments submitted before it decides whether to adopt or amend a rule.

Pursuant to the Constitution, the Chief Justice or a Justice designated by the Chief Justice is responsible for ruling on the disqualification of appellate and common pleas court judges. The procedure for obtaining review of a claim of disqualification against an appellate or common pleas judge is commenced by the filing of an affidavit of disqualification with the Clerk of the Supreme Court. The Revised Code contains specific requirements governing the filing of affidavits of disqualification.

Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution sets the size of the Court at seven -- a Chief Justice and six Justices, who are elected to six-year terms on a nonpartisan ballot. Two Justices are chosen at the general election in even-numbered years. In the year when the Chief Justice runs, voters pick three members of the Court.

A person must be an attorney with at least six years experience in the practice of law to be elected or appointed to the Supreme Court. Appointments are made by the Governor for vacancies that may occur between elections.

Date Published: May 29, 2019

 

Supreme Court of Ohio

 

Convicted felon sentenced to 42 months in prison for illegal gun possession

DAYTON – Christopher Watson, 29, of Dayton, was sentenced in U.S. District Court to 42 months in prison followed by three years of court supervision for illegally possessing a firearm.

Crafted in Cincinnati, Ohio: Brewmania announced for October

CINCINNATI, OHIO --- BREWMANIA, a brand new three-day event crafted in Cincinnati, Ohio will be a celebration of the Queen City’s craft beer industry and take place October 1-3, 2019. BREWMANIA will take place at various locations throughout Cincinnati as outlined and explained below, for a full list of participating locations please visit: www.brewmania.com/venues.php. Also, attendees of Brandemonium will be able to access Brewmania at no charge.

Students ‘appeal’ to justices at state moot court competition

Justices Patrick Fischer and Melody Stewart were among the panel of judges for latest state moot court championship won by Danville High School.

Fewer regulations for small Ohio wineries sought

A plan to free the owners of the state's smaller wineries from overburdensome regulation made its way to a committee in the Ohio House of Representatives recently.

Legislation would expand August sales tax holiday

Just as the current school year races to completion, lawmakers in the Ohio House of Representatives have taken up a measure intended to leave some money in the pockets of Ohio consumers when outfitting their kids for next school year.

1971 Columbus school incident led to landmark Supreme Court decision

The 1975 U.S. Supreme Court Case, Goss vs. Lopez, provided due process rights for students suspensions and expulsions from school.

Lessons from Brooklyn

E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one.

Search of man walking near where gunshots heard was constitutional

A police search of a man walking and talking on his cell phone in an area where gunshots were fired no more than 60 seconds earlier was lawful, and the handgun obtained during the search can be used as evidence, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled recently.

Sales Tax Law of 1935 changed how Ohio funds its schools

During the Great Depression, public schools in Ohio faced a financial crisis. Most schools received their funding through property taxes, according to Ohio History Connection.

Groundbreaking aviation technology set for testing in Ohio

The Ohio Unmanned Aircraft Systems Center and U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory plans to begin testing groundbreaking aviation technology at the Springfield-Beckley Municipal Airport, according to an announcement by Gov. Mike DeWine.

ODNR to launch new conservation teen advisory council

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) is seeking high school students to serve as founding members of the Conservation Teen Advisory Council (ConTAC), a new initiative to empower the youth voice. ConTAC is designed to become a statewide network of student-leaders working together to enhance ODNR’s youth outreach and program efforts.

Supreme Court of Ohio considers declaring an end to “free bite” rule for dogs

The Ohio Supreme Court on Wednesday, May 8th, heard four oral arguments, including one from the city of Cincinnati disputing an interpretation of state law that contends a dog must be designated “dangerous” through a formal process before a local government can seek restitution from a dog owner whose dog has bitten or injured a person or another animal.

ODNR provides more than $297,500 to help support Ohio rural fire departments

The Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Forestry strives to support Ohio’s rural fire departments and the communities they serve. Through the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program, the Division of Forestry recently approved grant funding for 52 projects totaling $297,520 for fire departments in rural parts of eastern and southern Ohio. The protection of life, property and forest resources provided by cooperating fire departments is important to all Ohioans.

Refund checks coming to tech support scam victims

A dozen Ohioans who fell victim to a widespread tech support scam will soon receive refunds totaling more than $5,000, Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and the Federal Trade Commission announced recently.

DeWine, Husted announce InnovateOhio platform

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine and Lt. Governor Jon Husted today announced the launch of the InnovateOhio Platform, which will coordinate data and resources across state government to improve the way Ohio tackles our most challenging problems. It will also streamline technology service across agencies to give Ohio citizens and businesses a better experience when interacting with state government.

Judge cannot block Cleveland Fire Department’s shift-change order

The Ohio Supreme Court recently lifted a hold placed by a Cuyahoga County judge on the Cleveland Fire Department’s move to change the starting time of its 24-hour shifts.

ODNR Reminds Ohioans to leave young wildlife in the wild

The spring season has arrived, offering many opportunities for Ohioans to help protect young wildlife. Each year, Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife offers this simple advice: enjoy wildlife from a distance and leave young animals alone. Wild animals are born to live their lives in the wild, and sometimes good intentions can hurt their chances of survival.

Glass company owner pleads guilty to not paying employment taxes

Also admitted filing false tax returns and failing to file returns

Second version of Ohio Constitution has changed little since its creation

Minus some Progressive reforms added in the early 20th century, the second iteration of the Ohio Constitution remains the fundamental law today.

Current city official, former Dayton City Commissioner among those charged with fraud

DAYTON – A federal grand jury here has returned indictments against a former Dayton city commissioner, a current city official and two Dayton businessmen, charging them with fraud and public corruption.