State ex rel. O'Malley v. Russo, No. 2018-0996

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM.
• Citation: 130 N.E.3d 256,156 Ohio St.3d 548,2019 Ohio 1698
• Decision Date: 08 May 2019
• Docket Number: No. 2018-0996
• Parties: The STATE EX REL. O'MALLEY, Pros. Atty., v. RUSSO, Judge.

156 Ohio St.3d 548
130 N.E.3d 256
2019 Ohio 1698

The STATE EX REL. O'MALLEY, Pros. Atty.,
v.
RUSSO, Judge.

No. 2018-0996

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted January 8, 2019
Decided May 8, 2019

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Charles E. Hannan, Nora E. Poore, and Brian R. Gutkoski, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for relator.

Paul W. Flowers Co., L.P.A., Paul W. Flowers, and Louis E. Grube, Cleveland, for respondent.

Per Curiam.

156 Ohio St.3d 548

{¶ 1} In this original action, relator, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Michael C. O'Malley, seeks a writ of prohibition to prevent respondent, Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Judge Michael J. Russo, from exercising jurisdiction over a wrongful-imprisonment claim filed by former death-row inmate Joe D'Ambrosio. O'Malley also seeks a writ of procedendo to compel Judge Russo to enter judgment terminating D'Ambrosio's litigation. Judge Russo has filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

{¶ 2} Although O'Malley presents a plausible argument that D'Ambrosio's underlying claim is barred under the doctrine of res judicata, Judge Russo does not lack jurisdiction over the pending action. We therefore grant Judge Russo's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Background

D'Ambrosio's convictions, death sentence, and release

{¶ 3} In 1989, D'Ambrosio was convicted of aggravated murder, kidnapping, and aggravated burglary and sentenced to death. State v. D'Ambrosio , 67 Ohio St.3d 185, 187, 616 N.E.2d 909 (1993). We affirmed the convictions, id. at 200, 616 N.E.2d 909, and the death sentence, State v. D'Ambrosio , 73 Ohio St.3d 141, 148, 652 N.E.2d 710 (1995). But in 2006, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio found that the state had failed to disclose material evidence to the defense in violation of Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). D'Ambrosio v. Bagley , N.D.Ohio No. 1:00 CV 2521, 2006 WL 1169926, *56 (Mar. 24, 2006), aff'd , 527 F.3d 489, 499-500 (6th Cir.2008).

156 Ohio St.3d 549

The district court granted a conditional writ of habeas corpus that required the state to either set aside D'Ambrosio's convictions and sentence or retry him within 180 days. Id.

{¶ 4} D'Ambrosio was scheduled to be retried in the court of common pleas in 2009, but about a week before the scheduled trial, the state disclosed the existence of additional relevant evidence. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley , 656 F.3d 379, 381 (6th Cir.2011). This led the trial court to postpone the start of D'Ambrosio's retrial—to a date outside the 180-day deadline imposed by

130 N.E.3d 260

the federal district court. Finding that the state had violated its discovery obligations during the retrial proceedings, the federal district court denied the state's request to extend the deadline and issued an unconditional writ of habeas corpus. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley , 619 F.Supp.2d 428, 453, 460 (N.D.Ohio 2009). In 2010, following the death of the state's key witness, the federal district court barred the state from reprosecuting D'Ambrosio. D'Ambrosio v. Bagley , 688 F.Supp.2d 709, 735 (N.D.Ohio 2010).

D'Ambrosio's 2012 wrongful-imprisonment action

{¶ 5} In 2012, D'Ambrosio commenced a wrongful-imprisonment action in the common pleas court under R.C. 2743.48. The statute establishes a two-step process. The claimant first "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." Griffith v. Cleveland , 128 Ohio St.3d 35, 2010-Ohio-4905, 941 N.E.2d 1157, paragraph two of the syllabus. Then, the claimant "must file a civil action against the state, in the Court of Claims, to recover a sum of money." Id.

{¶ 6} Regarding the first step, "[t]o be declared a wrongfully imprisoned individual, a person must satisfy all five elements of R.C. 2743.48(A)." James v. State , 148 Ohio St.3d 446, 2016-Ohio-8012, 71 N.E.3d 271, ¶ 6. The main issue in D'Ambrosio's case was the fifth element, which requires him to prove either that an "error in procedure" resulted in his release or that he did not commit the charged offenses. See R.C. 2743.48(A)(5). In his complaint, D'Ambrosio alleged both that he was released due to a procedural error and that he did not commit the charged offenses. Soon after D'Ambrosio filed his complaint, the parties and the court agreed that the case would proceed in two phases, with the parties first filing motions for summary judgment on D'Ambrosio's procedural-error theory. In its entry, the court stated, "If necessary, the case will proceed to phase two which will involve the issue of whether the offense was not committed by plaintiff."

{¶ 7} The trial court granted D'Ambrosio's motion for summary judgment, finding that he "is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because subsequent to sentencing and during or subsequent to imprisonment an error in procedure

156 Ohio St.3d 550

resulted in his release." In reaching its decision, the trial court rejected the state's argument that the language of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) requires an "error in procedure" to occur after the claimant was sentenced and imprisoned. The court relied on Mansaray v. State , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 98171, 2012-Ohio-3376, 2012 WL 3041310 (" Mansaray I "), in which the Eighth District Court of Appeals had rejected a similar argument made by the state. The trial court also stated that D'Ambrosio's procedural-error claim would succeed even under the state's interpretation of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5), because the state's Brady violations continued after D'Ambrosio's sentencing and imprisonment.

{¶ 8} The trial court did not address D'Ambrosio's secondary allegation that he did not commit the offenses for which he had been imprisoned. In its January 16, 2013 journal entry, the trial court stated,

Hearing held 1/11/13. The court announced its determination that plaintiff Joe D'Ambrosio is a wrongfully imprisoned individual. See Opinion and Order of 1/11/13. Pursuant to R.C. 2743.48(B)(1), the court provided plaintiff with a copy of the statute. The court also orally informed plaintiff and his counsel

130 N.E.3d 261

that plaintiff may commence a civil action against the state in the Court of Claims because of the plaintiff's wrongful imprisonment and that plaintiff may be represented in that civil action by counsel of his choice.

Two days after the court entered judgment, the state filed a "Motion to Reserve the Right to Contest Plaintiff's Alleged Innocence," in which it argued that "the ‘factual innocence’ component of plaintiff's Complaint is a significant matter that remains in vigorous dispute between these parties. And it remains an issue that is material to this case * * *." The trial court never ruled on this motion.

{¶ 9} The state appealed to the Eighth District, arguing (among other things) that the language of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) requires a procedural error to have occurred after the claimant was sentenced and imprisoned. The court of appeals rejected this argument (relying on Mansaray I ) and affirmed the trial court's judgment. D'Ambrosio v. State , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99520, 2013-Ohio-4472, 2013 WL 5593615, ¶ 19, 28-30 (" D'Ambrosio I "). The state then sought discretionary review in this court.

{¶ 10} Meanwhile, we had agreed to review Mansaray I as a discretionary appeal. While the D'Ambrosio appeal to this court was awaiting a jurisdictional decision, we reversed the court of appeals' judgment in Mansaray I , holding that "[w]hen a defendant seeks a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual and seeks to satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) by proving that an error in procedure resulted in his release, the error in procedure must have occurred

156 Ohio St.3d 551

subsequent to sentencing and during or subsequent to imprisonment." (Emphasis added.) Mansaray v. State , 138 Ohio St.3d 277, 2014-Ohio-750, 6 N.E.3d 35, syllabus (" Mansaray II ").

{¶ 11} We later accepted the state's appeal in D'Ambrosio and summarily "reversed on authority of" Mansaray II . 139 Ohio St.3d 1416, 2014-Ohio-2487, 10 N.E.3d 736. D'Ambrosio—who had not filed a memorandum in response to jurisdiction—then filed a motion for reconsideration, asking us to remand the cause. He argued that he was entitled to relief under an error-in-procedure theory, even under Mansaray II , because the Brady violations in his case occurred before and after his sentencing and imprisonment. His motion for reconsideration did not argue that his case should be remanded to allow him to prove that he had not committed the charged offenses. We denied the motion for reconsideration. 140 Ohio St.3d 1419, 2014-Ohio-3785, 15 N.E.3d 886 (noting that O'Connor, C.J., and French and O'Neill, JJ., would have granted reconsideration and remanded for application of Mansaray II and O'Donnell, J., did not participate).

Proceedings after reversal

{¶ 12}...