State ex rel. Prade v. Ninth Dist. Court of Appeals (Slip Opinion)
2017 Ohio 7651
| Ohio | 2017Background
- In 1998 Douglas Prade was convicted of aggravated murder; the Ninth District affirmed on direct appeal (trial evidence included a bite-mark comparison).
- New Y-STR DNA testing in 2012 excluded Prade as the source of male DNA on the victim’s clothing; Prade filed a petition for postconviction relief (or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial).
- On January 29, 2013 the Summit County Court of Common Pleas granted postconviction relief, found Prade actually innocent of aggravated murder, and ordered discharge (and alternatively granted a new trial if the relief order were reversed).
- The state appealed; the Ninth District reversed the postconviction grant on March 19, 2014. On remand a different trial judge (Judge Croce) reinstated Prade’s conviction and sentence; Prade was returned to prison July 25, 2014.
- Prade sought a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court to void the Ninth District’s appeal disposition, void the trial-court orders effectuating the remand, and prevent the Ninth District from deciding his pending appeal from denial of a new-trial motion. The Court issued an alternative writ and ultimately denied relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Prade) | Defendant's Argument (State / Respondents) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2945.67(A) permits the state to appeal a trial court’s grant of postconviction relief | The statute’s phrase “except the final verdict” bars the state from appealing a judgment that functions as a final verdict (Prade’s acquittal/actual-innocence finding) | R.C. 2945.67(A) unambiguously grants the state an appeal as of right from orders granting postconviction relief; the ‘‘except the final verdict’’ modifier applies only to appeals by leave | The Court held the statute plainly grants the state an absolute right to appeal a grant of postconviction relief; the state’s appeal and the appellate and trial courts’ subsequent actions were authorized |
| Whether the trial court’s factual finding of ‘‘actual innocence’’ converted the postconviction order into an unappealable final verdict | The finding of actual innocence is equivalent to an acquittal/final verdict and thus unappealable under R.C. 2945.67(A) | A determination of actual innocence in a postconviction proceeding does not convert a postconviction judgment into a trial-era final verdict; statute governs and permits appeal | The Court rejected Prade’s argument and held the postconviction judgment remained appealable despite the finding of actual innocence |
| Whether respondents lacked jurisdiction on remand to reinstate conviction and enforce sentence | Because the postconviction order was an unappealable final verdict, any appellate review and remand were unauthorized and subsequent reinstatement was void | The appellate reversal and remand were valid exercises of jurisdiction under the statutory appeal right; the trial judge on remand had authority to implement the mandate | The Court held respondents had jurisdiction and Prade failed to show respondent courts acted without legal authority |
| Whether prohibition is appropriate to prevent the Ninth District from deciding Prade’s pending appeal of Judge Croce’s denial of a new trial | The court should enjoin the appeals process because the postconviction relief was an unreviewable final verdict and relief by prohibition is warranted | No extraordinary relief is appropriate because the state had a statutory right to appeal and ordinary appellate processes provide remedies | The Court denied the writ of prohibition; the Ninth District may adjudicate the pending appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Fraternal Order of Eagles Aerie 0337 Buckeye, 58 Ohio St.3d 166 (1991) (interpreting R.C. 2945.67(A) to list specific as-of-right appeals including postconviction relief)
- Keeton v. Huntington Natl. Bank, 18 Ohio St.3d 379 (1985) (treats directed verdict/acquittal as a "final verdict" outside state's leave-to-appeal authority)
- State ex rel. Yates v. Montgomery Cty. Court of Appeals, 32 Ohio St.3d 30 (1987) (judgment of acquittal is a final verdict not appealable by state)
- State v. Bistricky, 51 Ohio St.3d 157 (1990) (discretionary appellate review of substantive rulings underlying acquittal allowed where judgment itself is not appealed)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. First Dist. Court of Appeals, 126 Ohio St.3d 405 (2010) (statutory interpretation principles and scope of R.C. 2945.67(A))