Court of Appeals of Ohio, Second District, Montgomery
ALLEN D. BOYD, Plaintiff-Appellant
STATE OF OHIO, et al. Defendant-Appellee
Court Case No. 16-CV-6512 (Civil Appeal from Common Pleas
D. BOYD, 56 E. Alkaline Springs Road, Vandalia, Ohio 45377
Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro Se
SAADEY, Atty. Reg. No. 0089181, 150 East Gay Street, 16th
Floor, Criminal Justice Section, Columbus, Ohio 43215
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee
1} Allen D. Boyd, pro se, appeals from a judgment of
the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, which dismissed,
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), his action against the State of
Ohio for a declaration that he is a "wrongfully
imprisoned individual, " as that term is defined by R.C.
2743.48(A). For the following reasons, the trial court's
judgment will be affirmed in part and reversed in part, and
the case will be remanded for further proceedings.
Background and Procedural History
2} Our opinion in Boyd's direct appeal in his
2011 criminal case, State v. Boyd, 2d Dist.
Montgomery No. 25182, 2013-Ohio-1067, provides the following
3} At approximately 4:00 p.m. on August 1, 2011,
Vandalia police officers responded to a two-story, four-unit
apartment building on a report of domestic violence. The
caller had reported that her boyfriend, Boyd, had put a gun
to her head. After arriving, Officer Brazel called the
girlfriend and instructed her to exit the building. After
exiting, the girlfriend approached Brazel and provided
additional details about what Boyd had done. She also
indicated that her adult nephew was inside the apartment. The
officer contacted the nephew by phone, who then also exited
the building. The officer made numerous unsuccessful attempts
to contact Boyd. Boyd eventually exited the apartment; he was
ordered to the ground and handcuffed. After Boyd was
arrested, Officer Brazel and Sergeant Stanley
"cleared" the apartment to make sure there were no
other suspects or victims. During the sweep, the officers
located a firearm on the bed in the master bedroom of the
girlfriend's apartment. Brazel testified at a suppression
hearing that the apartment complex was "for single
mothers and their children only, " but he understood
from past encounters with Boyd and his girlfriend that Boyd
"basically lived there."
4} Boyd was charged with having weapons while under
disability, in violation of R.C. 2923.13(A)(3), a felony of
the third degree. State v. Boyd, Montgomery C.P. No.
2011 CR 2608. The alleged disability stemmed from a prior
drug conviction in Case No. 1995 CR 4033. Boyd unsuccessfully
sought to suppress the evidence against him. In April 2012,
the matter proceeded to a jury trial, and the jury found him
guilty as charged. The trial court sentenced Boyd to 30
months in prison.
5} On appeal, Boyd challenged the trial court's
denial of his motion to suppress, claiming that the
"trial court erred in overruling [his] motion to
suppress evidence obtained as a result of the
unconstitutional search of his residence." On March 22,
2013, we concluded that the trial court had erred in denying
the motion to suppress. Boyd, 2d Dist. Montgomery
No. 25182, 2013-Ohio-1067. We stated that "[s]ince the
officers herein arrested Boyd outside of the apartment, and
no one posed a danger to them, the trial court erred when it
determined that the protective sweep was justified by the
circumstances." Id. at ¶ 27. We further
concluded that there were no exigent or emergency
circumstances justifying the officers' entry into the
apartment, id. at ¶ 30, and that the State had
waived any argument that Boyd lacked standing to object to
the search, id. at ¶ 31 -32. We reversed
Boyd's conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
6} Upon remand, a jury trial was scheduled for
August 13, 2013. Boyd alleges in his amended complaint in
this action that the State made several plea offers, but he
rejected each of the offers. On August 9, 2013, the trial
court dismissed the action, without prejudice, at the request
of the State; the entry indicated that a necessary witness
could not be located. Boyd was released from jail the same
7} After the dismissal of the criminal action, Boyd
and others filed several motions with the trial court related
to the return of property. Of relevance, one motion was
brought by Boyd's neighbor, Lori Staley, seeking the
return of the seized firearm, which allegedly belonged to
her. The court ultimately ordered the firearm to be
8} On December 29, 2016, Boyd, pro se, filed this
civil action in the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas,
seeking a determination that he was a "wrongfully
imprisoned individual, " pursuant to R.C. 2743.48(A). He
filed an amended complaint on January 19, 2017; numerous
documents from his prior court proceedings were attached.
9} In his amended complaint, Boyd detailed the trial
court proceedings that occurred in his prior drug case and
his 2011 case for having weapons while under disability. Boyd
alleged that his initial 1995 drug offense conviction was
void, and thus he had no disability to form the basis of his
subsequent conviction for having weapons while under
disability. Boyd also alleged that he never possessed the gun
seized on August 1, 2011, which belonged to Staley.
10} Addressing the requirements to be declared a
wrongfully imprisoned person, within the meaning of R.C.
2743.48(A)(1 -5), Boyd alleged that (1) he was indicted in
Case No. 2011-CR-2608 for having weapons while under
disability, a third-degree felony, (2) a jury convicted him
of that offense, (3) the trial court sentenced him to 30
months in prison for having weapons while under disability,
(4) his conviction and sentence for having weapons while
under disability were reversed by the Second District Court
of Appeals, and (5) he was released from the Montgomery
County Jail on August 9, 2013 (after the trial court entered
a judgment dismissing the case), he was not under disability
when he was arrested on August 1, 2011, and he never
possessed the firearm.
11} On February 20, 2017, the State filed a motion
to dismiss the action, pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The State asserted that Boyd was unable to satisfy the fourth
and fifth prongs of R.C. 2743.48(A). Specifically, it argued
that Boyd engaged in the act that formed the basis for the
having weapons while under disability charge, and thus he
could not satisfy R.C. 2743.48(A)(5). The State further
argued that Boyd could not prove that he was not engaged in
other criminal conduct arising out of the incident for which
he was charged, because he had engaged in felonious assault
(at a minimum) when he threatened his girlfriend with a gun.
The State thus argued that he also could not satisfy R.C.
12} Boyd opposed the State's motion, asserting
that he could satisfy each element of R.C. 2743.48(A). On
March 23, 2017, the trial court dismissed Boyd's action,
pursuant to Civ.R. 12(B)(6), finding that he could not
satisfy the fifth requirement of R.C. 2743.48(A).
13} Boyd appeals from the trial ...