JOEL COVENDER v. STATE OF OHIO
C.A. No. 18CA011355
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
September 16, 2019
2019-Ohio-3715
SCHAFER, Judge.
APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 13CV181182
Dated: September 16, 2019
SCHAFER, Judge.
{¶1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Joel Covender, appeals the judgments of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas denying his motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee, State of Ohio.
I.
{¶2} Mr. Covender commenced this wrongful imprisonment action on August 15, 2013. Proceeding on an amended complaint, Mr. Covender sought declaration that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual, pursuant to
{¶3} Mr. Covender filed a motion arguing that summary judgment was warranted because he presented sufficient evidence to satisfy each element of
{¶4} The trial court simultaneously issued two separate journal entries: one denying Mr. Covender‘s motion for summary judgment, and the other granting the State‘s motion for summary judgment and dismissing Mr. Covender‘s amended complaint. Mr. Covender timely appealed, presenting a single assignment of error for our review.
II.
Assignment of Error
The lower court erred when it granted [the State]‘s motion for summary judgment and denied [Mr. Covender]‘s motion for summary judgment because [Mr.] Covender satisfies all of the requirements under []R.C. 2743.48(A)(1)-(5) and this matter was timely filed.
{¶5} In his assignment of error, Mr. Covender argues that he satisfied the “actual innocence” prong of
{¶6} As an initial matter, we note that Mr. Covender indicates in his assignment of error that he challenges the trial court‘s denial of his motion for summary judgment. It is the duty of the appellant, not this Court, to present an argument demonstrating error on appeal. Angle v. Western Reserve Mut. Ins. Co., 9th Dist. Medina No. 2729-M, 1998 WL 646548, *1. In
{¶7} Under
(1) [no] genuine issue as to any material fact remains to be litigated; (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and viewing such evidence most strongly in favor of the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made, that conclusion is adverse to that party.
Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327 (1977). To succeed on a motion for summary judgment, the moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the absence of genuine issues of material fact. Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 292 (1996). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the non-moving party “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. at 293.
{¶8} This Court reviews an award of summary judgment de novo. Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102, 105 (1996). However, our review on appeal involves “a different focus than the trial court.” Murphy v. Reynoldsburg, 65 Ohio St.3d 356, (1992). The trial court‘s decision is a part of the de novo review process and its reasoning and analysis for granting summary judgment are subject to appellate review. Mourton v. Finn, 9th Dist. Summit No. 26100, 2012-Ohio-3341, ¶ 8. Although a de novo review means that we afford no deference to the decision of the trial court, this Court is unable to conduct a proper review of an award of
{¶9} Here, the State presented three distinct arguments in support of its motion for summary judgment. The State argued that: (1) as it relates to Case. No. 94CR45912, Mr. Covender‘s wrongful imprisonment claim was filed outside of the statute of limitations; (2) neither of Mr. Covender‘s criminal convictions were “vacated, dismissed, or reversed on appeal” as required by
{¶10} The lack of detail in the trial court‘s judgment entry left the parties “‘unsure why the trial court rendered the decision it did‘” and “‘essentially forced [the parties] to simply refile their summary judgment motions‘” in their briefs to this court. CitiMortgage, Inc. v. Tillman, 9th Dist. Lorain No. 17CA011090, 2018-Ohio-629, ¶ 10, quoting Mourton, at ¶ 9. Furthermore, the trial court‘s decision placed this Court “in the unfortunate position of being unable to provide meaningful review.” Id. at ¶ 11, citing Hunt v. Alderman, 9th Dist. Summit No. 27416, 2015-Ohio-4667, ¶ 19. Consequently, we find that it is necessary to reverse and remand the matter so that the trial court can enter a decision sufficient to permit appellate review. Id.
{¶11} The judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas is reversed, and this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
There were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
We order that a special mandate issue out of this Court, directing the Court of Common Pleas, County of Lorain, State of Ohio, to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this journal entry shall constitute the mandate, pursuant to
Immediately upon the filing hereof, this document shall constitute the journal entry of judgment, and it shall be file stamped by the Clerk of the Court of Appeals at which time the period for review shall begin to run.
Costs taxed to Appellee.
JULIE A. SCHAFER
FOR THE COURT
HENSAL, J. CONCURS.
TEODOSIO, P. J. CONCURS IN JUDGMENT ONLY.
W. SCOTT RAMSEY, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.
DAVID YOST, Attorney General, and THOMAS E. MADDEN, Assistant Attorney General, for Appellee.