State ex rel. West v. McDonnell
139 Ohio St. 3d 115
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Todd West was convicted of felonies with forfeiture specifications; the trial court (Judge McDonnell) entered a sentencing entry listing the Scranton Road property for forfeiture.
- West filed a notice of appeal from his conviction; thereafter third parties (Nicholas Kulon and Donnalee West) filed R.C. 2981.04 petitions to adjudicate interests in the Scranton Road property.
- Judge McDonnell held hearings and issued a January 13, 2012 entry resolving the petitions: dismissed Donnalee’s petition as untimely, found Kulon a bona fide purchaser but voided the sale under R.C. 2981.07, transferred title to Kulon, and ordered sale proceeds forfeited to public funds.
- West sought a writ of prohibition in the court of appeals to vacate the January 13 order, arguing the trial court lost jurisdiction after his October 11, 2011 notice of appeal and that the indictment did not list one parcel number forfeited.
- The Eighth District dismissed the prohibition petition, holding R.C. 2981.04 authorized post-sentencing forfeiture proceedings and that any errors were reviewable on direct appeal; West appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (West) | Defendant's Argument (Judge McDonnell / State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings after West filed a notice of appeal | Filing the notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to continue forfeiture matters | R.C. 2981.04 authorizes post-sentencing forfeiture hearings, so the trial court retained (at least apparent) jurisdiction | Trial court did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction; prohibition denied |
| Whether the court of appeals improperly considered facts outside the prohibition complaint when dismissing | The appellate court relied on record facts outside the petition, violating Civ.R. 12(B)(6) standards | The facts were part of the record in the underlying criminal/forfeiture case and/or judicially noticeable | Court need not decide judicial-notice issue; dismissal rested on legal grounds (statute and adequacy of appeal) |
| Whether forfeiture is part of the sentencing order so the trial court cannot act on it while appeal is pending | Any post-appeal modification of sentence is prohibited; forfeiture ordered here modified the sentence | Forfeiture is not a criminal penalty and is not part of the sentencing order; statutes anticipate post-conviction forfeiture proceedings | Forfeiture proceedings are separate from sentencing; Special Prosecutors does not bar post-appeal forfeiture (citing State v. Harris) |
| Whether the indictment’s failure to list a parcel number deprived the court of jurisdiction to forfeit that parcel | Indictment listed only one parcel; forfeiting the additional parcel exceeded court’s jurisdiction | Any error in describing the property is an error in exercise of jurisdiction, not absence of subject-matter jurisdiction; such errors are correctable on appeal | Lack of parcel listing was an error in exercise of jurisdiction, not a jurisdictional defect warranting prohibition |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318, 972 N.E.2d 509 (forfeiture is not a criminal penalty and need not be in the sentencing entry)
- State ex rel. Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229, 915 N.E.2d 633 (writ of prohibition issues when a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction)
- State ex rel. Bradford v. Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 597 N.E.2d 116 (prohibition remedy and appeal adequacy principles)
- State ex rel. Pearson v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 548 N.E.2d 945 (same governing principles for prohibition)
- State ex rel. Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 680 N.E.2d 985 (limitations on considering matters outside the complaint on dismissal)
- State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 866 N.E.2d 1070 (distinguishing errors in the exercise of jurisdiction from lack of subject-matter jurisdiction)