541 N.E.2d 635 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1989
The state of Ohio appeals from the decision of the trial court denying the state's motion for the forfeiture of a car pursuant to R.C.
"On September 15, 1987, defendant and her sister, co-defendant Georgia Andrea, were seated in defendant's 1982 Honda Civic in a parking lot at Blossom Music Center. Detectives Pizzute and McCutcheon, who were patrolling the lot looking for criminal activity, observed Georgia Andrea bent over something in her lap. Suspecting drug use, the detectives approached the car and saw that Ms. Andrea was using cocaine. Defendant was not using cocaine. Her purse was searched, however, and a small quantity of cocaine was found therein.
"Defendant was arrested and her automobile was seized at the scene. On December 4, 1987, almost three months after the automobile was seized, the state filed a Petition for Forfeiture. On December 23, 1987, defendant pled no contest and was found guilty of drug abuse, as charged in Count One of the indictment."
The trial court denied the state's motion for forfeiture under R.C.
The court also found that the forfeiture statute, R.C.
Finally, the trial court found that the state failed to comply with the procedural requirements for forfeiture.
The state assigns one error in its challenge to each of the grounds upon which the trial court based its decision. *135
We affirm the trial court based on the state's failure to comply with the procedural requirements of R.C.
R.C.
"Upon the seizure of contraband pursuant to division (A) of this section, the prosecuting attorney, * * * or similar chief legal officer who has responsibility for the prosecution of the underlying criminal case * * * shall file a petition for the forfeiture, to the seizing law enforcement agency, of the seized contraband. The petition shall be filed in the court of common pleas of the county that has jurisdiction over the underlying criminal case or administrative proceeding involved in the forfeiture. * * *" (Emphasis added.)
A statute must be interpreted according to the common meaning of the statutory language. State v. Hix (1988),
In support of its argument, the state cites other common pleas court decisions that have granted forfeiture when there has been a similar delay in filing. We choose not to follow their rationale. The legislature has spoken clearly and required that the petition for forfeiture must be "filed upon the seizure of the contraband." Certainly seventy-nine days is neither "upon seizure" nor a reasonable time. If the parameters of procedural requirements are to be interpreted so broadly, it is the legislature which must instruct us to do so.
Accordingly, we overrule the state's assignment of error and affirm the trial court's decision.
Judgment affirmed.
QUILLIN and BAIRD, JJ., concur.