The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that a Cleveland man, Michael Riley, who is serving a 26-year-to-life sentence, is entitled to a new review of his request for DNA testing. The court found that the trial judge improperly dismissed Riley's application by adopting the prosecution's objections verbatim, including a typographical error.
The ruling reverses the decision of the Eighth District Court of Appeals and directs the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court to reconsider Riley’s application for DNA retesting. Riley was convicted in connection with a murder outside a Cleveland bar in 2016. Although it was unclear if he fired the gun, he was found either to be the shooter or complicit in the crime.
Justice Michael P. Donnelly noted that Riley's attempt to demonstrate he was not the shooter was mishandled by the trial court. The court failed to provide an explanation for rejecting his petition for retesting using advanced technology not available during his trial, as required by R.C. 2953.73(D).
After appealing to the Eighth District, Riley faced further challenges when the Cuyahoga County Prosecutor’s Office submitted findings and conclusions to support rejecting his petition on the same day as his appeal. The trial judge adopted these submissions without modification.
Justice Donnelly pointed out that this submission contained factual errors about the original DNA test that should have been noticed by the judge. The inclusion of these errors indicated non-compliance with legal requirements for a comprehensive review.
Justices Melody Stewart and Jennifer Brunner joined Justice Donnelly’s opinion.
In a separate concurring opinion, Justice R. Patrick DeWine argued that once Riley filed an appeal notice, jurisdiction shifted away from the trial court except for actions aiding in appeal processes. Therefore, subsequent findings adopted by the trial court were void and should not have been considered by the appellate court.
Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justice Joseph T. Deters supported Justice DeWine’s view.
Justice Patrick F. Fischer dissented, suggesting dismissal due to improper acceptance of the case.
The case has been remanded with instructions for independent consideration of Riley’s application and reasoning documentation for any decision made regarding his request.
2023-1149 State v. Riley Slip Opinion No. 2024-Ohio-5712