actual-innocence claim in Ohio

2017More recently, this court rejected an attempt to extend the actual- innocence standard to include the reversal of a conviction due to a lack of legally sufficient evidence. [State v. Doss, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 , 985 N.E.2d. 1229, 2012-Ohio-5678 .] In the context of a wrongful-imprisonment action, we found no difference between an acquittal by a fact finder and the reversal of a conviction for insufficient evidence: both are based “on a dearth of evidence of guilt,” not on a showing of actual innocence.

2017More recently, this court rejected an attempt to extend the actual- innocence standard to include the reversal of a conviction due to a lack of legally sufficient evidence. [State v. Doss, 135 Ohio St.3d 211 , 985 N.E.2d. 1229, 2012-Ohio-5678 .] In the context of a wrongful-imprisonment action, we found no difference between an acquittal by a fact finder and the reversal of a conviction for insufficient evidence: both are based “on a dearth of evidence of guilt,” not on a showing of actual innocence.

2015In Bundy, the Court held that: “A claimant seeking a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual does not satisfy the actual-innocence standard of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) by showing that his conviction was reversed solely because the statute describing the offense could not be enforced on constitutional grounds.” Id. at syllabus. {¶19} In Bundy, the state appealed the determination that David Bundy, the claimant, was a wrongfully-imprisoned individual.

2015In Bundy, the Court held that: “A claimant seeking a declaration that he is a wrongfully imprisoned individual does not satisfy the actual-innocence standard of R.C. 2743.48(A)(5) by showing that his conviction was reversed solely because the statute describing the offense could not be enforced on constitutional grounds.” Id. at syllabus. {¶19} In Bundy, the state appealed the determination that David Bundy, the claimant, was a wrongfully-imprisoned individual.

2021This argument does not provide a basis for reversal however, because a claim of actual innocence is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief under Ohio law, and Orr “has or had adequate legal remedies such as a petition for postconviction relief * * * to raise his contentions concerning * * * his innocence.” Shie v. Leonard, 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161 , 702 N.E.2d 419 (1998). {¶ 7} In his second proposition of law, Orr argues that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas petition without making “a factual identification inquiry” into his guilt.

2021This argument does not provide a basis for reversal however, because a claim of actual innocence is not a cognizable basis for habeas relief under Ohio law, and Orr “has or had adequate legal remedies such as a petition for postconviction relief * * * to raise his contentions concerning * * * his innocence.” Shie v. Leonard, 84 Ohio St.3d 160, 161 , 702 N.E.2d 419 (1998). {¶ 7} In his second proposition of law, Orr argues that the court of appeals erred in dismissing his habeas petition without making “a factual identification inquiry” into his guilt.

2017Hamilton No. C-120483, 2013-Ohio-1626 , 2013 WL 1750454 , ¶ 7-9 (reading defendant's postsentence Crim.R. 32.1 actual-innocence claim, based on affidavits by the victim and her mother exonerating him, to allege that his guilty pleas had been unknowing and unintelligent because he had mistakenly believed that they would falsely incriminate him at trial).

2007Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 419 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 (App.2003); Van Polen v. Wisch, 23 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex.App.2000); Labovitz v. Feinberg, supra, [ 47 Mass.App.Ct. 306 ] 713 N.E.2d [379] at 385 [ (1999) ].

2007Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 419 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 (App.2003); Van Polen v. Wisch, 23 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex.App.2000); Labovitz v. Feinberg, supra, [ 47 Mass.App.Ct. 306 ] 713 N.E.2d [379] at 385 [ (1999) ].

2007Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 419 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 (App.2003); Van Polen v. Wisch, 23 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex.App.2000); Labovitz v. Feinberg, supra, [ 47 Mass.App.Ct. 306 ] 713 N.E.2d [379] at 385 [ (1999) ].

2007Bird, Marella, Boxer & Wolpert v. Superior Court, 106 Cal.App.4th 419 , 130 Cal.Rptr.2d 782 (App.2003); Van Polen v. Wisch, 23 S.W.3d 510, 516 (Tex.App.2000); Labovitz v. Feinberg, supra, [ 47 Mass.App.Ct. 306 ] 713 N.E.2d [379] at 385 [ (1999) ].