Martin v. State

1

2022-Ohio-2580

ISAIAH MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 110919

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

July 28, 2022

Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-19-926517

Scott & Winters Law Firm, LLC, Joseph F. Scott, and Ryan A Winters, for appellant.

Michael C. O'Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jillian Eckart, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for appellee.

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

{¶ 1} Plaintiff-appellant Isaiah^[1] Martin ("Martin") appeals from the trial court's decision denying his motion for summary judgment and granting defendant-appellee the state of Ohio's ("the state's") motion for summary judgment on Martin's claim for wrongful imprisonment. Upon review, we affirm.

I. Factual and Procedural History

{¶ 2} On September 7, 2016, a prescheduled child-visitation exchange was to occur at 8 p.m. between Mark D'Amore ("D'Amore") and Amanda Reese ("Reese") in the parking lot of the Cleveland Division of Police - First District station. Reese has two children with D'Amore, and they have a shared parenting agreement. Because of the contentious relationship between D'Amore and Reese, they conducted exchanges in the parking lot of the police station.^[2]

{¶ 3} On the evening of the exchange involved in this matter, D'Amore did not appear on time for the child exchange. D'Amore and Reese exchanged multiple hostile text and phone communications, though no explicit physical threats occurred. At some point, Reese called Martin, whom she was dating, and relayed the contents of the text messages D'Amore had been sending her. While on the phone with Reese, Martin overheard an argument occurring between D'Amore and Reese once D'Amore arrived at the police station. Rather than contacting the police, Martin proceeded to drive to the police station parking lot with a loaded gun.

{¶ 4} D'Amore had arrived on foot at the police station with the children, D'Amore's then-girlfriend Latasha Wisniewski ("Wisniewski"), and Wisniewski's teenage daughter shortly after 8:30 p.m. While D'Amore was saying goodbye to his children, a verbal altercation between Wisniewski and Reese was occurring. At this point, Martin pulled into the police station parking lot and D'Amore immediately approached Martin's truck. D'Amore was not armed. The undisputed evidence showed that during the altercation, Martin shot D'Amore in the shoulder.

{¶ 5} The trial record contains differing accounts of exactly what occurred during the confrontation. Some witnesses testified that D'Amore ran over to the truck aggressively and challenged Martin to a fight. Other witnesses testified that D'Amore calmly walked over to the truck and Martin immediately put a gun in D'Amore's face. D'Amore testified that when he walked up to Martin's truck, Martin said, "I told you I was going to put you in a body bag." Martin testified that D'Amore rushed his truck and said that he wanted to fight. No other witnesses could testify as to what either man said during the encounter, although Wisniewski testified that she told D'Amore to stop when he headed toward Martin's truck because she thought they were going to fight. Ultimately, Martin admitted that he shot D'Amore, but he asserted that he did so in self-defense.

{¶ 6} Between 8:30 and 8:45 p.m., police officers, hearing yelling and screaming outside, exited the police station and found Martin holding a gun and calmly stating that he had shot D'Amore. Martin surrendered his gun to the police immediately and was generally cooperative, telling police that D'Amore had come after him and Martin was defending himself.

{¶ 7}In September 2016, Martin was charged in a six-count indictment with attempted murder, two counts of felonious assault, two counts of endangering children, and intimidation of a crime victim or witness in Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-16- 609654-A The attempted murder and felonious assault charges each carried one- and three-year firearm specifications and weapons forfeiture specifications. The criminal case proceeded to a bench trial, in which Martin asserted that he acted in self-defense. On May 25, 2017, the criminal court found Martin not guilty of attempted murder, endangering children, or intimidation. However, the court found Martin guilty of two counts of aggravated assault as "lesser included" offenses of felonious assault, along with the attendant one- and three-year firearm specifications. The court rejected his claim of self-defense. The court announced its verdict, in relevant part, as follows:

So in reaching my verdict I have considered the affirmative defense of self-defense and the burden placed on the defense to prove by a preponderance of the evidence all three elements of that defense.

Further, this Court has also considered Revised Code 2901.05(B)(1), more commonly referred to as the Castle doctrine, which relieves the defendant's burden to prove those three elements. I am aware of what the defendant must establish in order for that presumption to apply.

Further, I am also aware that the presumption may not apply or that may be rebutted by [the] State of Ohio, which would then require the defense to establish all three elements of the affirmative defense.

This Court, after careful and deliberate review of all of the evidence, finds that the State of Ohio has not presented evidence that rises to the acceptable legal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to Counts Two and Three [the felonious assault charges.]

This Court does find, however, that the State has presented evidence that rises to the legal standard of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as to the lesser included offenses of aggravated assault, as defined in Revised Code 2903.12, with both the one and three-year firearm specifications.

Following merger, the court sentenced Martin to three years of imprisonment on the firearm specifications to be served prior and consecutive to a one-year term of community-control sanctions on the underlying aggravated assault conviction.

{¶ 8} Martin appealed, and this court reversed his conviction of aggravated assault upon concluding that "when the trial court found Martin not guilty of felonious assault, it could not, as a matter of law, find him guilty of aggravated assault." State v. Martin, 2018-Ohio-1098, 109 N.E.3d 652, ¶ 14 (8th Dist.) ("Martin I"). As observed in Martin I, instead of being a lesser-included offense of felonious assault, "aggravated assault is an inferior degree of felonious assault because its elements are identical to or contained within the offense of felonious assault, coupled with the additional presence of one or both mitigating circumstances of sudden passion or a sudden fit of rage brought on by serious provocation occasioned by the victim." Martin I at ¶ 8, citing State v. Searles, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96549, 2011-Ohio-6275; see also State v. Deem, 40 Ohio St.3d 205, 210-211, 533 N.E.2d 294 (1988). Therefore, "a finding of not guilty of felonious assault necessarily precludes a finding of guilty of aggravated assault as an inferior offense of felonious assault." Id. at ¶ 14.^[3] On remand to the trial court in the criminal case, Martin's conviction was vacated in accordance with this court's mandate in Martin I.^[4]

{¶ 9} On December 12, 2019, Martin filed a civil complaint against the state seeking a declaration that he was a wrongfully imprisoned individual as defined by R.C. 2743.48(A), Ohio's wrongful-imprisonment statute, and therefore entitled to compensation. The state filed its answer on January 8, 2020. Thereafter, the parties filed competing motions for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a journal entry on July 1, 2021, denying Martin's motion for summary judgment and permitting the parties to file additional briefing on the state's motion for summary judgment. Supplemental briefing was filed by the parties. The state argued that summary judgment was warranted in its favor because Martin could not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence his actual innocence as required under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) for his wrongful-imprisonment claim. Martin maintained that he was actually innocent and that the record demonstrated genuine issues of material fact as to whether he acted in self-defense.

{¶ 10} On September 20, 2021, the trial court granted the state's motion for summary judgment. In its corresponding opinion, the trial court found that Martin could not satisfy his burden under R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) of establishing his actual innocence, stating in relevant part:

Here, Plaintiff cannot sustain his burden [to show actual innocence]. There is no dispute that Plaintiff pulled out a gun and shot the victim. It [is] clear from the record that the trial court delivered its verdict by mistakenly considering aggravated assault as a lesser-included offense rather than an inferior offense. In the criminal case, the legal and technical result of this error caused the conviction to be vacated. While this Court understands the Eighth District's opinion that a criminal conviction for aggravated assault cannot legally be sustained after a finding of not guilty on a charge of felonious assault, the evidence nevertheless establishes Plaintiffs criminal conduct, and the trial court's finding of criminal culpability and rejection of his self-defense argument.

The ultimate criminal disposition for the legal and procedural posture of the underlying criminal case does not negate the factual findings as applied in this civil matter. * * * [T]he facts adduced at trial still remain the facts of the case. The Plaintiff admitted at trial that he shot the victim. Moreover, Plaintiff has not claimed actual

...