Derrico v. State
2019 Ohio 1767
Ohio Ct. App.2019Background
- Derrico pleaded guilty in 2012 to drug trafficking and possession and was sentenced to four years.
- In 2016 the prosecutor moved to vacate and dismiss his conviction and sentence with prejudice after an internal review revealed misconduct by three East Cleveland officers; the court granted the motion in 2017 and terminated postrelease control.
- Derrico filed a civil complaint under Ohio’s wrongful imprisonment statute, R.C. 2743.48(A), seeking declaration he was a "wrongfully imprisoned individual."
- The State moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing R.C. 2743.48(A)(2) bars compensation for claimants who pleaded guilty, even if the guilty plea was later vacated.
- Derrico first raised a facial constitutional challenge to R.C. 2743.48(A)(2) in his memorandum opposing the State’s motion and then moved to amend his complaint; the trial court denied leave to amend and granted the State’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.
- This appeal challenges (1) the denial of leave to amend and (2) the trial court’s refusal to find R.C. 2743.48(A)(2) unconstitutional; the court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend to add a constitutional challenge | Derrico: denial was error because he made a prima facie showing that R.C. 2743.48(A)(2) is unconstitutional | State: amendment was untimely and Derrico failed to show prima facie support for the new claim | Denial affirmed — amendment untimely under Civ.R. 15(A) and Derrico failed to make the required prima facie showing |
| Whether R.C. 2743.48(A)(2) (bar on claimants who pleaded guilty) is facially unconstitutional | Derrico: statute arbitrarily distinguishes plea entrants from those convicted at trial, violating due process and equal protection | State: statute is rationally related to legitimate interests (protecting public funds and imposing a higher standard on plea takers) | Statute upheld under rational-basis review; Derrico failed to carry burden to show lack of any rational relation to state interests |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrold v. Collier, 836 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio 2005) (distinguishes facial and as-applied constitutional challenges)
- State v. Romage, 7 N.E.3d 1156 (Ohio 2014) (facial challenges require showing no set of circumstances leaves statute valid)
- Conley v. Shearer, 595 N.E.2d 862 (Ohio 1992) (applies rational-basis review where no suspect class or fundamental right is implicated)
- Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (U.S. 1993) (courts must defer to legislature under rational-basis review)
- Pickaway Cty. Skilled Gaming, L.L.C. v. Cordray, 936 N.E.2d 944 (Ohio 2010) (identify legitimate state interest then assess rational relation of means)
- Dunbar v. State, 992 N.E.2d 1111 (Ohio 2013) (acknowledges Legislature excluded guilty pleas from wrongful-imprisonment statute and left no exception for later-vacated pleas)