2020 Ohio 1604
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Police seized $6,100 in cash from a locked closet in the room Nicholas Waycaster occupied in his mother Mamie Waycaster’s house; cash was in a box with a ledger of drug transactions.
- Waycaster pleaded guilty to drug offenses and a final judgment ordered forfeiture of $6,659 (including the $6,100 seized).
- Mamie, claiming the cash was her legitimate savings, filed an inartful motion during the criminal case seeking return of the property, invoking procedures in R.C. 2981.03(A)(4) and R.C. 2981.04(E)-(F).
- The trial court conducted a hearing under R.C. 2981.04(E) and amended the forfeiture order, directing the Parma Police Department to pay Mamie $6,100.
- The State appealed, asserting it had a right to appeal as of right under R.C. 2945.67(A) (motion for return of seized property); the appellate court questioned jurisdiction because the trial court’s order amended a forfeiture, rather than granted return of seized property.
- The appellate court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the State’s direct appeal from an amendment to a final forfeiture order and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State has an appeal as of right under R.C. 2945.67(A) from a trial court order amending a final forfeiture under R.C. 2981.04(F) | The order amending forfeiture is in the nature of a motion for return of seized property, so the State may appeal as of right | The order is an amendment to a forfeiture order under R.C. 2981.04, not a motion for return of seized property; State must seek leave if appeal not authorized | Court: No jurisdiction; appeal dismissed because R.C. 2945.67(A) does not authorize an as-of-right appeal here |
| Whether an R.C. 2981.04(F) amendment equates to a motion to return "seized" property under R.C. 2945.67(A) | The State: substantively similar — grants return of property, so appealable as of right | The amendment affects forfeited property (title already vested in state); statute distinguishes seized vs forfeited property | Court: Not equivalent; statute distinguishes seized and forfeited property; amendment is not a motion to return seized property |
| Effect of a third-party petition filed during the criminal case under R.C. 2981.03(A)(4) on jurisdiction | State implied trial court retained jurisdiction and action could be treated like return-of-property motion | Third party (Mamie) used 2981.03(A)(4) to invoke R.C. 2981.04(E)-(F); that preserves ancillary jurisdiction but follows forfeiture-postconviction procedures | Court: 2981.03(A)(4) preserves trial court authority to resolve third-party claims under 2981.04(E)-(F) but does not convert the procedure into a motion for return of seized property |
| Whether the State’s failure to seek leave to appeal (when required) is jurisdictional | State contended no leave required because appeal is as of right | Appellee: if not an as-of-right appeal, State must seek leave under App.R. 5(C) and R.C. 2945.67(A) | Court: Failure to seek leave when required is jurisdictional; because no as-of-right appeal existed, appellate court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Raber, 134 Ohio St.3d 350 (discusses termination of trial court general jurisdiction after final conviction)
- State ex rel. White v. Junkin, 80 Ohio St.3d 335 (jurisdictional principles regarding trial court authority after final orders)
- State ex rel. Hansen v. Reed, 63 Ohio St.3d 597 (same)
- State v. Fisher, 35 Ohio St.3d 22 (procedural requirement that state seek leave when appeal not authorized as of right)
- State ex rel. Steffen v. Judges of the Court of Appeals for the First Appellate Dist., 126 Ohio St.3d 405 (failure to timely seek leave for appeal is jurisdictional)
- State v. Brimacombe, 195 Ohio App.3d 524 (illustrates appellate review of trial court rulings under Ohio forfeiture statutes)