State v. Bracy
2016 Ohio 7536
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2016Background
- In Dec. 2013 police made four controlled buys of 1 gram heroin each from Trenton Bracy and executed a search warrant at his apartment, seizing heroin, 1,552.5 grams of marijuana, paraphernalia, and multiple cash stashes totaling over $12,000.
- Bracy was indicted on multiple counts including five heroin-trafficking counts; certain counts included forfeiture specifications as to a 1997 Crown Victoria and cash seized in the apartment.
- Bracy pleaded guilty to the charges but reserved the forfeiture specifications for bench trial; the trial court found some cash forfeitable and ordered forfeiture of the car and $3,000 in cash (including only $1,720 of $10,720 found in the bathroom ceiling), returning the remainder to Bracy.
- At sentencing the court imposed two years community control and a mandatory $5,000 fine but suspended it after finding Bracy indigent; an affidavit of indigency was completed at the hearing but not time-stamped/filed before the sentencing journal entry.
- The State appealed, raising three assignments of error: (1) trial court failed to impose mandatory fine because the affidavit of indigency was not timely filed; (2) trial court improperly found future inability to pay; (3) trial court erred in its proportionality analysis and declined to forfeit $9,000 of the $10,720 seized.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded: (1) vacated and remanded for resentencing limited to imposition of the mandatory fine because affidavit was not timely filed; (2) found the second assignment moot; (3) reversed the forfeiture ruling and remanded for proper proportionality analysis under R.C. 2981.09.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not imposing mandatory fine when affidavit of indigency was not filed prior to sentencing | Affidavit was not timely filed; statute requires fine unless indigency affidavit filed prior to sentencing | Affidavit was presented at sentencing and should excuse imposition | Court held affidavit was not time-stamped/filed prior to journal entry so mandatory fine must be imposed; portion of sentence void and remanded for resentencing limited to fine |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by finding future inability to pay and thus not imposing fine | State argued court should require proof of future inability and impose fine | Bracy argued indigency justified suspension | Moot — appellate court declined to address following resolution of first issue |
| Whether $9,000 of $10,720 seized was disproportionate and improperly withheld from forfeiture | State argued court erred by focusing on dollar value of heroin sold rather than statutory proportionality factors and should forfeit the funds | Bracy argued the full sum was disproportionate given limited, low-dollar controlled buys | Court held trial court applied wrong standard (focused on value of contraband rather than severity of offense); remanded for reconsideration under R.C. 2981.09 factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear and convincing evidence standard)
- Gipson v. Ohio, 80 Ohio St.3d 626 (interpreting requirement that indigency affidavit be filed prior to sentencing/journal entry)
- State v. Moore, 135 Ohio St.3d 151 (holding that a sentence is void when a mandatory fine is not imposed)