The court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated has exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or proceeding that is commenced by an individual who satisfies divisions (A)(1) to (5) of section 2743.48 of the Revised Code and that seeks a determination by the court that an error in procedure of the type described in division (A)(5) of that section occurred, that the offense of which the individual was found guilty, including all lesser included offenses, was not committed by the individual, or that no offense was committed by any person. If the court enters the requested determination, it shall comply with division (B) of that section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 50
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1959–2025 · leading case: Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1989).
Walden v. State, 547 N.E.2d 962 (Ohio 1989). · cites it 24דThese cases present our first opportunity to construe Ohio’s wrongful imprisonment statutes, R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48. These statutes were added to the Revised Code in 1986 by Sub.”
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 12דPrior to filing suit in the Court of Claims for damages, a petitioner must establish the following: (1) the petitioner was convicted of a felony; (2) the petitioner was sentenced for that conviction; (3) the conviction was vacated, dismissed, or reversed; (4) no further…”
State ex rel. Tubbs Jones v. Suster, 1998 Ohio 275 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 14ד] Writ of prohibition to prevent judge of Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County from conducting further proceedings in suit seeking a determination, pursuant to R.C. 2305.02, that Dr. Samuel Sheppard was innocent of the crime of which he had been convicted and for which he…”
Foy v. Ohio Atty. Gen., 2022 Ohio 62 (Ohio Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 8דSpecifically, the state argued that, under R.C. 2305.02, only the court of common pleas in the county where the underlying criminal action was initiated has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine whether a person is a wrongfully imprisoned individual as provided in R.”
Griffith v. City of Cleveland, 2010 Ohio 4905 (Ohio 2010). · cites it 5ד*40 R.C. 2305.02 {¶ 28} Finally, R.C. 2305.02 states that courts of common pleas have “exclusive, original jurisdiction to hear and determine an action or proceeding that is commenced by an individual who satisfies divisions (A)(1) to (4) of section 2743.”
Chandler v. State, 641 N.E.2d 1382 (Ohio Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 7דAppellant filed the instant petition on July 11, 1991 seeking a judicial determination that he was a 'wrongfully-imprisoned individual pursuant to R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48. Appellant was originally charged, in a four-count indictment, with three counts of drug abuse in violation…”
Brandon v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr., 2021 Ohio 418 (Ohio Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 3ד{¶ 12} The Ohio General Assembly enacted R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48 to allow civil actions against the state by certain wrongfully imprisoned individuals.”
City of Columbus v. Marcum, 584 N.E.2d 1233 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 6דThis matter is before this court upon the appeal of Johnny Marcum, appellant, from the judgment of the Franklin County Municipal Court finding him guilty of criminal damaging in violation of Columbus City Code Section 2305.02. On October 27, 1988, appellant and Gloria Marvin…”
State v. Moore, 165 Ohio App. 3d 538 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2ד48, in conjunction with R.C. 2305.02, requires a trial court “to adjudicate the issue of whether an individual is wrongfully imprisoned after the parties have presented their positions in an adversary setting.”
Felton v. Felton, 679 N.E.2d 672 (Ohio 1997). “Accordingly, it is clear that the General Assembly intended to apply the usual preponderance of the evidence standard to civil proceedings under R.C. 2305.02.” The same reasoning applies to R.”
Dunbar v. State, 2013 Ohio 2163 (Ohio 2013). “R.C. 2305.02 and 2743.48(B)(2); Griffith v.”
State v. Nicholas, 2022 Ohio 4276 (Ohio 2022). “For example, in determining that the standard of proof under R.C. 2305.02, a wrongful- conviction statute, was “the usual preponderance of the evidence standard,” this court wrote, “The General Assembly, had it wanted to do so, knew how to specify a ‘clear and convincing’…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.