D'Ambrosio v. State
2013 Ohio 4472
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- D’Ambrosio was convicted of aggravated murder and other offenses in 1988, sentenced to death and concurrent imprisonment.
- Brady violations and undisclosed evidence were identified in federal habeas corpus proceedings beginning in 2001, leading to a 2006 district court order to set aside convictions or retry within 180 days.
- The district court’s 2006 order was stayed and later upheld; in 2008 the district court ordered a retrial or dismissal within 180 days.
- By 2009 the state produced additional undisclosed evidence; the state sought more time to retry and did not act within a 15-day extension.
- In 2010 the district court barred reprosecution; the Sixth Circuit affirmed the bar, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2012.
- D’Ambrosio then filed suit under R.C. 2743.48 seeking a declaration he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual, asserting an “error in procedure” under A(5) as the basis for release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an error in procedure after sentencing qualifies under RC 2743.48(A)(5) | D’Ambrosio asserts that Brady/due process violations and post-sentencing conduct constitute an error in procedure. | State argues no error occurred post-sentencing to trigger A(5); release was due to sanctions, not error. | Yes, RC 2743.48(A)(5) applies; release resulted from post-sentencing procedural errors. |
| Whether the amendment to RC 2743.48(A)(5) allows proof of error in procedure instead of actual innocence | Amendment permits proving an error in procedure caused release, not actual innocence. | State contends actual innocence or other grounds required. | Amendment permits proving procedural error caused release; no reliance on actual innocence required. |
| Whether the Brady violations and post-sentencing due process violations constitute a single or multiple grounds for relief | Both Brady and post-sentencing failures independently support relief. | Only either Brady or post-sentencing failures suffices; not both. | Both grounds support relief; R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) satisfied. |
| Whether release barred reprosecution, satisfying RC 2743.48(A)(5) | Release due to procedural errors precludes reprosecution. | State can still retry under proper conditions. | Release barred reprosecution; district court’s bar sustained. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hill v. State, 2013-Ohio-1968 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 12AP-635) (procedural error precludes reprosecution under A(5) when due process violated before sentencing)
- Mansaray v. State, 2012-Ohio-3376 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98171) (pre-sentencing error in evidence can satisfy A(5))
- Larkins v. State, 2009-Ohio-3242 (10th Dist. Franklin No. 09AP-140) (Brady error and timing impact A(5) eligibility)
- Nelson v. State, 2007-Ohio-6274 (5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2006 AP 0061) (amendment allows A(5) relief where procedural error caused release)
- D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 619 F. Supp. 2d 428 (N.D. Ohio 2009) (federal habeas record confirming Brady violations and due process failures)