607 N.E.2d 51 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1992
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas which denied appellant state of Ohio's petition for forfeiture of defendant-appellee's motor vehicle.
Although appellant has not set forth a statement of the assignment of error presented for review pursuant to App.R. 16(A)(2), this court construes appellant's "Argument" as its sole assignment of error. Appellant sets forth therein that:
"The trial court erred in denying the forfeiture petition because Jerry Lawson's conviction for an attempt to commit the offense of felony drug abuse rendered his automobile, used in the commission of such offense, subject to forfeiture pursuant to R.C.
The facts that are relevant to a determination of the issues raised by this appeal are as follows. On March 30, 1990, appellee, Jerry Lawson, was arrested and his 1990 Toyota 4-Runner Truck ("truck") seized as contraband. On April 11, 1990, appellee was indicted on one count of felony drug abuse in violation of R.C.
"The principle [sic] issue in this case is whether the forfeiture statute applies where a defendant is not convicted of a felony. Lawson argues that a felony conviction is necessary and since he was only convicted of a misdemeanor, his truck cannot be forfeited.
"The Supreme Court of Ohio recently addressed this issue inState of Ohio v. Casalicchio (1991),
It is from this judgment that appellant brings this appeal.
In its sole assignment of error, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying its forfeiture petition. In support, it argues that R.C.
Appellee responds that pursuant to R.C.
R.C.
"(A) No person shall possess, conceal, transport, receive, purchase, sell, lease, rent, or otherwise transfer any contraband.
"(B) For purposes of section
R.C.
"If the property seized was determined by the seizing law enforcement officer to be contraband because of its relationship to an underlying criminal offense or administrative violation, no forfeiture hearing shall be held under this section unlessthe person pleads guilty to or is convicted of the commissionof, or an attempt or conspiracy to commit, the offense * * *.
"* * * *223
"* * * When a hearing is conducted under this section,property shall be forfeited upon a showing by a preponderance ofthe evidence by the petitioner that the person from which theproperty was seized was in violation of division (A) of section
While R.C.
In Wingate v. Hordge (1979),
"It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that where the terms of a statute are clear and unambiguous, the statute should be applied without interpretation. Provident Bank v.Wood (1973),
In addition, R.C.
The intent of the legislature in enacting R.C.
"Forfeiture of R.C.
Upon consideration of the foregoing, this court finds that a felony conviction is required in order for R.C.
Accordingly, appellant's sole assignment of error is not well taken.
Judgment affirmed.
HANDWORK, P.J., and GLASSER, J., concur.
"* * * R.C.
The justice who authored the Baumholtz, supra, opinion, however, dissented in Casalicchio, supra, but stated nevertheless that "* * * R.C.