Griffith v. City of Cleveland, 2009–1363.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Citation: 128 Ohio St.3d 35,941 N.E.2d 1157
• Docket Number: No. 2009–1363.,2009–1363.
• Parties: GRIFFITH, Appellee,v.CITY OF CLEVELAND et al.; The State of Ohio, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 12 October 2010

128 Ohio St.3d 35
941 N.E.2d 1157
2010 -Ohio- 4905

GRIFFITH, Appellee,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND et al.; The State of Ohio, Appellant.

No. 2009–1363.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 20, 2010.Decided Oct. 12, 2010.

[941 N.E.2d 1157]

[Ohio St.3d 35] Syllabus of the Court

1. Only courts of common pleas have jurisdiction to determine whether a person has satisfied the five requirements of R.C. 2743.48(A).

2. All wrongful-imprisonment claimants must follow a two-step process. In the first step, the claimant must bring an action in the court of common pleas to secure a determination that he or she is a wrongfully imprisoned individual entitled to compensation. In the second step, the claimant must file a civil action against the state, in the Court of Claims, to recover a sum of money. ( Walden v. State (1989), 47 Ohio St.3d 47, 547 N.E.2d 962, followed.)

Slicer Law Office, Charles W. Slicer III, Dayton, and Kathryn L. Bowling, for appellee.

Richard Cordray, Attorney General, Benjamin C. Mizer, Solicitor General, Alexandra T. Schimmer, Chief Deputy Solicitor General, Brandon J. Lester, Deputy Solicitor, Christopher P. Conomy, Assistant Solicitor, and Peter E. DeMarco, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant.

PFEIFER, J.

{¶ 1} The issue in this case is whether a claim for wrongful imprisonment may originate, in certain circumstances, in the Court of Claims. We hold that all claims

[941 N.E.2d 1158]

for wrongful imprisonment must originate in a court of common pleas.

Factual and Procedural Background

{¶ 2} Appellee Gerry E. Griffith Jr. was charged in federal district court with possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking. He moved to suppress evidence of the gun, arguing that the consent to the search that yielded the gun was obtained due to an unlawful arrest. The court denied the motion, finding [Ohio St.3d 36] that the police had had probable cause to arrest him. Griffith then pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, reserving the right to challenge the denial of the motion to suppress.¹

{¶ 3} The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's decision to deny Griffith's motion to suppress, concluding that the consent to search Griffith's home was a direct result of an unlawful arrest. According to Griffith, the charges were dismissed upon remand, and he was released from custody in January 2007.

{¶ 4} Griffith subsequently filed a claim for wrongful imprisonment against the state of Ohio ² in the Court of Claims. That court dismissed the claim, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the case without an initial declaratory judgment from a court of common pleas stating that Griffith was a wrongfully imprisoned individual. Griffith appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, relying on a 2003 amendment to R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) in concluding that the Court of Claims has original jurisdiction over wrongful imprisonment when the claim is premised on “an error in procedure result[ing] in the individual's release.”

{¶ 5} We accepted the state's discretionary appeal. Griffith v. State, 123 Ohio St.3d 1492, 2009-Ohio-6015, 916 N.E.2d 1073.

Analysis R.C. 2743.48(A)

{¶ 6} R.C. 2743.48 provides:

{¶ 7} “(A) As used in this section and section 2743.49 of the Revised Code, a ‘wrongfully imprisoned individual’ means an individual who satisfies each of the following:

{¶ 8} “(1) The individual was charged with a violation of a section of the Revised Code by an indictment or information prior to, or on or after, September 24, 1986, and the violation charged was an aggravated felony or felony.

{¶ 9} “(2) The individual was found guilty of, but did not plead guilty to, the particular charge or a lesser-included offense by the court or jury involved, and the offense of which the individual was found guilty was an aggravated felony or felony.

[Ohio St.3d 37] {¶ 10} “(3) The individual was sentenced to an indefinite or definite term of imprisonment in a state correctional institution for the offense of which the individual was found guilty.

{¶ 11} “(4) The individual's conviction was vacated or was dismissed, or reversed on appeal, the prosecuting attorney in the case cannot or will not seek any further appeal of right or upon leave of court, and no criminal proceeding is pending, can be brought, or will be brought by any prosecuting attorney, city director of law, village solicitor, or other chief legal officer of a municipal corporation against the individual

[941 N.E.2d 1159]

for any act associated with that conviction.

{¶ 12} “(5) Subsequent to sentencing and during or subsequent to imprisonment, an error in procedure resulted in the individual's release, or it was determined by a court of common pleas that the offense of which the individual was found guilty, including all lesser-included offenses, either was not committed by the individual or was not committed by any person.”

{¶ 13} Under R.C. 2743.48(E)(1), a claimant establishes entitlement to compensation for wrongful imprisonment by filing in the Court of Claims a certified copy of a court of common pleas' entry determining that the claimant was a “wrongfully imprisoned individual” as defined by R.C. 2743.48(A). In this case, the first four requirements in R.C. 2743.48(A)'s definition of “wrongfully imprisoned individual” are not before us. The sole issue is whether R.C....