State v. FreemanState v. Freeman
JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED
RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: July 7, 2022
Appearances:
Michael C. O‘Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paul E. Hanna, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.
Cullen Sweeney, Cuyahoga County Public Defender, and Erika B. Cunliffe, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, A.J.:
{1} Kayla Freeman appeals the trial court‘s post-dismissal decision denying a motion seeking the return of property seized upon Freeman‘s arrest for felonious assault. Freeman shot an assailant in the leg with a lawfully possessed and
{2} Following the dismissal, Freeman filed a motion requesting the court order the City of Cleveland Police Department to return her seized property. The state did not object to Freeman‘s request. See, e.g., State v. Devore, 5th Dist. Ashland No. 19-COA-017, 2019-Ohio-4035, 9-10 (finding reversible error in denying a motion for the return of seized property in light of the state‘s concession).
{3} Property “seized pursuant to a search warrant[ ] or otherwise lawfully seized or forfeited and that is in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall be kept safely by the agency, pending the time it no longer is needed as evidence or for another lawful purpose, and shall be disposed of” under
{4} The trial court denied Freeman‘s motion requesting the return of her property as moot, claiming a lack of jurisdiction to consider the post-dispositive motion. Freeman claims the trial court possessed continuing jurisdiction to order the police department to return the seized property and, therefore, erred by failing to consider the merits of her motion. The state agrees that the trial court‘s conclusion was in error. Accordingly, the sole question presented for our review is whether the trial court possesses continuing jurisdiction to resolve issues with the retention of seized property following a dismissal of the indictment for which the property was seized.
{5} The parties’ position is not contrary to law: a trial court retains continuing jurisdiction to consider a motion for return of property following the conclusion of a case in which the seizure of the property was required. B.A.C. v. A.V., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 108259, 2019-Ohio-4166, ¶ 3, citing State v. White, 2018-Ohio-2573, 115 N.E.3d 878, ¶ 22 (2d Dist.), and State v. Bolton, 2017-Ohio-7263, 97 N.E.3d 37 (2d Dist.); see also State v. Holloway, 6th Dist. Wood No. WD-20-021, 2021-Ohio-1843, 21 (compiling cases); State v. Castagnola, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 29141 and 29250, 2020-Ohio-1096, ¶ 16, citing State v. Housley, 2d Dist. Miami No. 2018-CA-4, 2018-Ohio-4140, ¶ 9; State v. Harris, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 99AP-684, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 818, 2000 WL 249161, *2 (“[C]ourts routinely address postconviction motions for the return of property previously seized[, and] [c]ourts have also entertained such motions filed in criminal cases even after the criminal charges have been dismissed.“).
{6} Because the parties agree as to resolution of the assigned error and the disposition of the appeal, we need not further dwell on this discussion.
{7} In light of the foregoing, the decision of the trial court is reversed and this matter remanded for full consideration of Freeman‘s motion.
{8} Reversed and remanded.
It is ordered that appellant recover of appellee costs herein taxed.
The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.
SEAN C. GALLAGHER, ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J., and EMANUELLA D. GROVES, J., CONCUR