2004 Ohio 1031 | Ohio Ct. App. | 2004
{¶ 2} The Warren County Drug Task Force executed a search warrant on appellant's apartment on February 12, 2000 and seized cash and cocaine from the residence. Appellant was indicted on charges of possession of cocaine to which he pled guilty in October 2000. On December 18, 2002, appellant filed a motion for return of property, requesting that the court return the money seized from the apartment.
{¶ 3} On January 21, 2003, the trial court issued a decision and entry which essentially denied appellant's motion. The trial court's entry states that "[t]he Court finds that the Warren County Drug Task Force seized one thousand eighty-four dollars and sixty-one cents ($1,184.61) from defendant. Said money has been held in evidence by the Warren County Drug Task Force since that time. It is hereby ORDERED that the full amount * * * shall be paid to the Warren County Clerk of Court in partial payment of court costs and attorney fees * * *." The trial court's decision does not provide any indication of what statutory authority it used to order that appellant's money should not be returned, nor does it provide any further factual findings.
{¶ 4} Appellant now appeals the trial court's decision. In his pro se brief, appellant raises four assignments of error. In his first and fourth assignments of error, appellant essentially argues that the state failed to follow the forfeiture procedures in R.C.
{¶ 5} Appellant's motion alleged that the return of his money was required under R.C.
{¶ 6} We begin our analysis by noting that forfeitures are not favored by the law and the law requires that individual property rights must be favored when interpreting forfeiture statutes. Dept. of Liquor Control v. Sons of Italy Lodge 0917,
{¶ 7} Appellant argues that the state did not have authority to seize his property pursuant to the forfeiture procedure found in R.C.
{¶ 8} In this case, appellant was convicted in October 2000. The trial court did not hold a hearing regarding the money until January 21, 2003. Thus, the trial court was clearly outside of the 45-day requirement for forfeiture as provided in R.C.
{¶ 9} On appeal, the state responded to appellant's arguments by stating that there was no forfeiture, and that the trial court correctly disposed of the money pursuant to its power over confiscated property pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 10} Specifically, the state argues that appellant has no right to the money pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 11} Even if we were to assume that this section applies to the facts of this case, there is no indication that the trial court considered that provision, or made the necessary factual findings that appellant lost possession of his property pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 12} In conclusion, we find that appellant's first and fourth assignments of error alleging that the trial court was without statutory authority to order the confiscated money forfeited and used to pay court costs and attorney fees has merit. Because we must reverse the trial court's decision on this issue, appellant's other assignments of error are moot.
{¶ 13} Judgment reversed and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings according to law and consistent with this opinion.
Valen, P.J., and Powell, J., concur.