State v. Green, 07ca33 (5-8-2008)State v. Green, 07ca33 (5-8-2008)
{¶ 1} Stеphen L. Green appeals the sentencing judgment of the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court, requiring him to forfeit $806 in cash and his vehicle. On appeal, Grеen contends that the forfeiture of the $806 in cash was not a part of his sentencing because, unlike the forfeiture of his vehicle, it was never mentioned at his sentencing hearing or otherwise raised in the trial court pursuant to
I.
{¶ 2} After a Lawrence County Grand Jury indicted Green for various drug offenses, he and the State entered into a plea agreement. The agreеment included (1) a jointly recommended sentence and (2) Green forfeiting his vehicle.
{¶ 3} The court approved and carried out the plea agreement at the sentencing hearing and imposed the jointly recommended sentence. Green received the following prison terms: (1) eight-years, along with a $10,000 mandatory fine, for possession of crack cocaine in violation of
{¶ 4} The court asked the State to prepare the written sentencing entry.
When the State prepared the entry and submitted it to the court, it rеflected what occurred at the sentencing hearing. In addition, the State‘s prepared entry included the following language, “It is further Ordered that the $806.00 cash аs confiscated from Defendant at the time of his arrest is hereby forfeited to the Lawrence Drug Task Force Asset Forfeiture Fund.” Because of this languagе, Green‘s counsel refused to approve the entry. After a discussion in chambers with counsel, the trial court signed the entry without the approval of Green‘s counsel.
{¶ 5} Green appeals the forfeiture (of his cash and vehicle) part of his sentence and asserts the following two assignments of error: I. “The Cоurt erred in ordering the forfeiture of monies confiscated from the appellant upon his arrest, when the court failed to abide by the procedurеs set forth in
II.
{¶ 6} The crux of Green‘s contention in his first assignment of errоr is that the forfeiture of the $806 in cash, found on him at the time of his arrest, was not a part of his sentencing because, unlike the forfeiture of his vehicle, it was nevеr mentioned at his sentencing hearing or otherwise raised in the trial court. Green
{¶ 7} Wе undertake a de novo review to answer this legal question. See, e.g., Yazdani-lsfehani v. Yazdani-lsfehani, 170 Ohio App.3d 1, 2006-Ohio-7105, ¶ 20.
{¶ 8}
{¶ 9} Here, the State did not include a specification in the indictment.
{¶ 10} However,
{¶ 11} Here, the State admits that it did not comply with
{¶ 12} Therefore, because the State did not insert a specification in the indictment or otherwise notify Green pursuant to
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we sustain Green‘s first assignment of error.
III.
{¶ 14} Green contends in his second assignment of error that, even though he agreed as part of his plea agreement to forfeit his vehicle, the trial court violated
{¶ 15} In his first assignment of еrror, Green maintained that the forfeiture of the $806 in cash was not part of his sentence. We agreed. Here, in his second assignment of error, he agrees that the forfeiture of the vehicle was part of his sentence. Thus, we must first determine if Green can appeal his sentence.
{¶ 16}
{¶ 17} Here, the State and Green entered into a plea agreement. The trial cоurt imposed the joint recommended sentence of the parties. The concurrent four eight-year prison terms, along with the concurrent one-year prison term, was authorized by law. Green agrees that, as part of the plea agreement, he agreed
{¶ 18} Even if we did review Green‘s sentence, we would find that Green invited any error that the court committed. A party may not take advantage of an error that he invited or induced. State v. Davis, 116 Ohio St.3d 404, 2008-Ohio-2, ¶ 95, citing Hal Artz Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. (1986), 28 Ohio St.3d 20, paragraph one of the syllabus. Here, Green, along with the State, asked the court to aрprove and carry out the plea agreement. The court did so. Therefore, Green invited any error that occurred regarding the forfeiture of his vehicle.
{¶ 19} Accordingly, we overrule Green‘s second assignment of error and affirm, in part, and reverse, in part, the judgment of the trial court.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED IN PART, AND REVERSED IN PART.
It is ordered that the JUDGMENT BE AFFIRMED IN PART, and REVERSED IN PART, and Appellant and Appellee shall equally pay the costs herein taxed.
The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.
It is оrdered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Lawrence County Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Harsha, J. and McFarland, J.: Concur in Judgment and Opinion.