State v. NorthState v. North
{¶1} Defendant-appellant David E. North presents on appeal a single assignment of error, challenging the Hamilton County Common Pleas Court‘s judgment overruling his motion for the return of property seized incident to his arrest. Because the state retained North‘s property without complying with the law governing forfeiture, we sustain the assignment of error and reverse the court‘s judgment.
{¶2} In 2008, North was convicted upon no-contest pleas to aggravated robbery, robbery, kidnapping, felonious assault, and menacing by stalking. In 2009 and 2010, we remanded North‘s case for merger of the robbery and aggravated-robbery offenses and the two kidnapping offenses, but in all other respects, we affirmed North‘s convictions. See State v. North, 1st Dist. No. C-080322 (May 13, 2009), appeal not accepted, 123 Ohio St.3d 1423, 2009-Ohio-5340, 914 N.E.2d 1064; State v. North, 1st Dist. No. C-090406, 2010-Ohio-2766, appeal not accepted, 126 Ohio St.3d 1601, 2010-Ohio-4928, 935 N.E.2d 47.
{¶3} In July 2011, North filed with the common pleas court a motion seeking the return of personal property seized from his person and his car when he was arrested. The court overruled the motion without a hearing or further elaboration, and this appeal followed.
{¶4} R.C. Chapter 2981 applied. In 2006, when North committed and was indicted for his offenses, the procedures for forfeiture and disposition of property seized by a law enforcement agency were set forth in
{¶5}
{¶6} North was entitled to the process afforded by R.C. Chapter 2981. “Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity.” Thus, forfeiture statutes, which operate “in derogation of private property rights, must be strictly construed * * * so as to avoid a forfeiture of property,” and “[n]o forfeiture may be ordered unless the expression of the law is clear and the intent of the legislature manifest.” State v. Lilliock, 70 Ohio St.2d 23, 25-26, 434 N.E.2d 723 (1982). The legislative purpose of
{¶7}
{¶8} A prosecuting attorney may then pursue forfeiture of seized property in a criminal proceeding under
{¶9} Forfeiture may be ordered only after the prosecuting attorney has identified and notified parties with an interest in the property, the trial court has conducted a hearing, and the trier of fact has found that the property is subject to forfeiture. See
{¶10} A person with an interest in seized property may seek its return by means of a motion filed in the criminal case before the prosecuting attorney has filed a charging instrument containing a forfeiture specification,
{¶11} Here, the state retained the property seized from North without complying with
{¶12} In the absence of a final forfeiture adjudication, the state‘s interest in the property seized from North remains “provisional.” See
{¶13} We, therefore, reverse the court‘s judgment overruling North‘s motion for return of property and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with the law and this opinion.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
SUNDERMANN, P.J., concurs.
DINKELACKER, J., concurs in judgment only.
Please note:
The court has placed of record its own entry in this case on the date of the release of this opinion.