State v. McMeen
25 N.E.3d 422
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- McMeen was charged with inducing panic under R.C. 2917.31 and discharging a firearm under Tiffin City Ordinance § 549.08; complaints lacked a forfeiture specification.
- McMeen pled no contest to both charges on August 6, 2014 and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.
- On August 27, 2014, police filed two Applications for Disposition of Property citing R.C. 2933.41 and seeking forfeiture of two firearms.
- The trial court granted both forfeiture applications the same day, despite the complaints lacking a forfeiture specification and the statute in use being repealed.
- McMeen objected on August 29, 2014, arguing the firearms were not subject to forfeiture and the forfeiture specification was improper; the court did not rule on the objection.
- The appellate court ultimately held the forfeiture was improperly ordered due to lack of statutory authority and defective charging documents, reversing and remanding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the firearms were subject to forfeiture under 2981.02 | McMeen argues no forfeiture authority under 2981.02 for misdemeanors | State contends forfeiture possible under 2981.02 as instrumentality | Firearms not subject to forfeiture under 2981.02 |
| Whether the forfeiture order impermissibly modified the sentence | State asserts forfeiture follows sentence | McMeen contends forfeiture was an after-the-fact modification | moot due to rejection of forfeiture authority (not reaching merits) |
| Whether McMeen was denied due process for lack of notice/hearing on forfeiture | State argues forfeiture was proper after sentencing | McMeen asserts lack of notice and opportunity to be heard | Denied due process due to failure to provide notice (sustained) |
| Whether the forfeiture violated double jeopardy | State preserves forfeiture as civil penalty separate from criminal | McMeen asserts dual jeopardy from criminal sentence and forfeiture | Not addressed; moot after ruling on first assignment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012-Ohio-1908) (forfeiture is a civil, not criminal penalty; not required to be in judgment of conviction)
- State v. Stults, 195 Ohio App.3d 488 (2011-Ohio-4328) (criminal-forfeiture order must be part of sentence to be final)
- State v. Coleman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91058 (2009-Ohio-1611) (lack of forfeiture specification invalidates forfeiture authority)
- State v. Haymond, 5th Dist. Stark No. 2009-CA-00078 (2009-Ohio-6817) (forfeiture depends on proper complaint and statute)