2014 Ohio 1429
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Perez Worley was convicted in 2009 of multiple felonies (including attempted murder and aggravated robbery) and sentenced to 29 years; this court reversed his convictions in 2011 based on a Confrontation Clause error.
- On retrial Worley was acquitted of all charges and then filed a wrongful-imprisonment complaint under R.C. 2743.48 in March 2013.
- Worley moved for summary judgment, arguing he met R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) because an error in procedure resulted in his release.
- The trial court granted Worley’s motion and declared him a “wrongfully imprisoned individual,” permitting him to pursue a claim in the Court of Claims.
- The State appealed, arguing the procedural-error language in R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) requires the error to occur subsequent to sentencing and during or after imprisonment; the trial court’s other procedural rulings were also challenged.
- The court of appeals reversed the trial court, holding that under the Ohio Supreme Court’s recent precedent the error must occur after sentencing and during or after imprisonment; because Worley’s Confrontation Clause error occurred before sentencing/imprisonment, he did not satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) is satisfied when a judicial determination finds a pre-sentencing procedural error that led to reversal | Worley: a judicial determination that an error occurred (even if the error occurred before sentencing) satisfies (A)(5) | State: (A)(5) requires the procedural error to occur subsequent to sentencing and during or after imprisonment | Error must occur subsequent to sentencing and during or after imprisonment; Worley did not meet (A)(5) |
| Whether the trial court properly granted Worley summary judgment | Worley: no genuine issue of material fact; entitled to judgment as matter of law | State: disputed timing/meaning of “subsequent to sentencing”; summary judgment improper | Summary judgment for Worley reversed; judgment for State ordered as matter of law |
| Miscellaneous trial-court procedural rulings (motions to strike, protective order, leave to file cross-motion, Civ.R. 60) | Worley: trial court acted within discretion on discovery and evidence rulings | State: trial court committed procedural errors denying motions and rulings | Court found these issues moot in light of reversal on main statutory-interpretation issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Doss v. State, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 (2012) (explains the two alternative ways to satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5): a subsequent procedural error causing release, or a determination of actual innocence)
- Zivich v. Mentor Soccer Club, 82 Ohio St.3d 367 (1998) (sets forth summary-judgment test under Civ.R. 56)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (1996) (establishes de novo standard of review for summary judgment on appeal)
- Horton v. Harwick Chemical Corp., 73 Ohio St.3d 679 (1995) (summarizes the three-part summary-judgment standard)