State v. Recinos
2014 Ohio 3021
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- State appeals a dismissal of a forfeiture specification and a sentence ruling, and the court’s order to apply seized money to fines/restitution.
- Trooper stopped a white van for tint/equipment violations; Recinos seated with $7,500 in cash.
- Canine Hera indicated drugs; a plastic baggie of meth was found.
- Defendant gave inconsistent explanations for the money; the money was charged as subject to forfeiture.
- Trial court dismissed forfeiture due to lack of grand jury probable cause and sentenced Recinos to six months with financial orders tied to the seized money.
- State v. Recinos, 2014-Ohio-3021, involved on-alford plea to possession; forfeiture issues intertwined with sentencing and money disposition.
- The appellate court ultimately sustained the state’s challenge to the forfeiture and the sentencing procedure and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the forfeiture specification was properly dismissed | Recinos | Recinos | Yes; forfeiture requires proper statutory process and hearing; dismissal affirmed and remanded for proceedings consistent with forfeiture law |
| Whether the forfeiture issue was properly considered at suppression, and if not, whether to remand | State | Recinos | Yes; findings improper; remand for forfeiture proceedings |
| Whether the sentence violated the statute due to lack of presentence investigation and community control requirements | State | Recinos | Yes; sentence vacated and remanded for proper sentencing under amended R.C. 2929.13 |
| Whether the money should be released to fund fines and costs, given the remand on forfeiture | State | Recinos | Premature; unresolved pending forfeiture proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318 (2012-Ohio-1908) (forfeiture is civil, requires proper procedure and findings by trier of fact)
- State v. Gaines, 64 Ohio App.3d 230 (1990) (due process applies to forfeiture proceedings treated as civil actions)
- State v. Crumpler, 2012-Ohio-2601 (9th Dist. Summit) (forfeiture issues not properly raised by suppression; must address ultimate forfeiture question)
- State v. Evans, 93 Ohio App.3d 121 (1994) (presentence investigation rules for community control)
- State v. Wood, 2013-Ohio-1136 (5th Dist. Licking) (strict construction of forfeiture statutes; reversible if requirements not met)