State v. Housley
2018 Ohio 4140
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Defendant Timothy H. Housley pled guilty to drug-trafficking and possession; sentenced to five years in Nov. 2016.
- In Dec. 2017 the State filed an application to forfeit and destroy evidence seized (two cell phones, two computers, currency, handgun); the trial court granted forfeiture and later filed an amended order identifying the items.
- On Jan. 8, 2018 Housley filed a pro se motion for return of property seeking a cell phone, $3.00, a safe, and a computer; the motion cited no authority or analysis.
- The trial court denied the motion as moot for items already ordered forfeited/destroyed and concluded it lacked jurisdiction to order return of a safe in the custody of the City of Troy because the city was not a party.
- On appeal the court: (1) held the motion was moot as to items already forfeited/destroyed and (2) reversed the trial court’s conclusion about authority to order return of the safe and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Housley) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction to order forfeiture and destruction under R.C. Ch. 2981 | Forfeiture under R.C. Ch. 2981 is authorized; any procedural errors are errors in exercise of jurisdiction, not absence of subject-matter jurisdiction | Argued indictment lacked forfeiture provision and trial court failed to follow statutory forfeiture process, so court lacked jurisdiction | Court: Trial court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction; any defect would be procedural (exercise of jurisdiction), so forfeiture order stands as a final civil forfeiture judgment |
| Whether a motion for return of property was a proper vehicle to challenge an existing forfeiture order | Forfeiture order is a final, appealable civil judgment; motion for return is not the correct vehicle to relitigate validity of forfeiture | Sought return via motion for return of property | Court: Motion for return was moot as to items already forfeited/destroyed; such items must be challenged by appeal or Civ.R. 60(B) rather than a motion for return |
| Whether items already destroyed by court order could be recovered by motion for return | N/A (State had already obtained forfeiture/destruction order) | Claimed entitlement to items and challenged sufficiency of forfeiture process | Court: Items already ordered destroyed — motion is moot regarding those items |
| Whether the trial court had authority to order the return of a non-forfeited item (the safe) held by police/city | Trial court has authority to order police to return property not subject to forfeiture; the City of Troy’s custody does not prevent the court from ordering return to defendant | Argued court lacked authority because City of Troy was not a party and statute didn’t authorize post-conviction joinder | Court: Trial court erred in finding it lacked authority; remanded to allow proceedings on return of the safe |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Johnson v. Kral, 153 Ohio St.3d 231, 103 N.E.3d 814 (Ohio 2018) (writ of mandamus denied where relator had adequate remedy at law to reclaim property via replevin)
- State v. Bolton, 150 Ohio St.3d 186, 97 N.E.3d 37 (Ohio 2017) (discusses remedies for return of property seized by police)
- State ex rel. Jividen v. Toledo Police Dept., 112 Ohio App.3d 458, 679 N.E.2d 34 (6th Dist. 1996) (replevin is the proper action to reclaim possession after unlawful seizure)