Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 06-09-2018
Case Style:
STATE OF OHIO vs. ANTOINE D. WILLIAMS
|
Case Number: 106178
Judge: PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON
Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA
Plaintiff's Attorney: Shannon M. Musson
Amy Venesile
Assistant County Prosecutors
Defendant's Attorney: James R. Willis
Description:
conviction for forfeiture specifications requiring him to forfeit $385. He assigns the following
errors for our review:
I. The court erred and [Williams] was denied due process when the court without the benefit of any findings of fact forfeited certain monies seized in the wake of an arrest, this despite the absence of any proof that showed a nexus between the crimes on which [Williams] was convicted, and the monies ordered forfeited to the state.
II. Given all monies seized in the name of the state (whether in the wake of the execution of a search warrant, or otherwise), is subject to the orders of the court as to its disposition, thus it follows the absence of any proven nexus between the seized item and a crime for which [Williams] was convicted, any forfeiture to the state cannot survive meaningful scrutiny.
{¶2} Having reviewed the record and pertinent law, we affirm the decision of the trial
court. The apposite facts follow.
{¶3} On August 10, 2015, Williams, Thessalonia Hardy (“Hardy”), and Dejuan Wells
(“Wells”) were indicted in a 12-count indictment. As is relevant herein, Williams was charged
with knowingly conveying drugs into a detention facility, drug trafficking in a schoolyard and
forfeiture specifications (cell phone and $385), drug possession with forfeiture specifications,
and possessing criminal tools with forfeiture specifications.
{¶4} Williams moved to suppress the evidence, and the trial court held an evidentiary
hearing on December 16, 2015. During the suppression hearing, Det. Robert Kalal of the Parma
Police Dept. testified that in June 2015 the police received information concerning suspicious
activity and possible drug activity at a home on Brownfield Drive. The following month, they
received an anonymous tip regarding drugs and weapons at the same address. The officers
undertook surveillance of the single family home and, in less than two hours, the officers
observed that nine or ten vehicles visited the home, with multiple people coming and going.
According to the testimony, the officers examined license plates through a mobile data terminal
and learned that a white Buick stopped at the residence had fictitious license plates. The officers
followed the vehicle as it proceeded to Ridge Road and initiated a traffic stop. The vehicle
slowed, then abruptly sped off before the driver exited and fled on foot. The occupants,
including Williams, were apprehended, while the driver was arrested a short distance away. The
officers determined that Williams had outstanding warrants, and he was arrested. The evidence
further demonstrated that ecstacy tablets and a handgun were recovered from the vehicle. The
trial court subsequently denied Williams’s motion to suppress.
{¶5} After the denial of his motion to suppress, Williams attempted to enter a plea of no
contest in order to preserve suppression-related issues for appeal. The trial court refused to
accept the plea as a matter of policy. Williams pled guilty to the indictment, but appealed to this
court. This court reversed and remanded. See State v. Williams, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No.
104202, 2016-Ohio-7782 (“Williams I”).
{¶6} On remand, Williams pled guilty to the charges, but not the forfeiture specifications,
and the court held a forfeiture hearing, but did not obtain additional evidence. However, defense
counsel acknowledged that Williams had drugs on his person at the time of his booking into jail,
and “[a]long with that contraband, * * * $385[.]” The court subsequently convicted Williams of
the forfeiture specifications, and also sentenced Williams to concurrent nine-month terms for his
offenses.
Forfeiture
{¶7} In his first and second assigned errors, Williams argues that the trial court failed to
make factual findings in support of forfeiture, and that the evidence is insufficient to demonstrate
a nexus between the offenses and the forfeited money.1
{¶8} The state bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that
property is subject to forfeiture. State v. West, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 97391 and 97900,
2013-Ohio-96, ¶ 34; State v. Fort, 2014-Ohio-3412, 17 N.E.3d 1172, ¶ 17 (8th Dist.), citing State
v. Watkins, 7th Dist. Jefferson No. 07 JE 54, 2008-Ohio-6634. On review, an appellate court
may not reverse the trial court’s decision where there is some competent, credible evidence going
to all the essential elements of the case. Id. On an appeal from a forfeiture order, the scope of
our review is limited to “an examination of the evidence presented to see if the evidence supports
the finding that the items seized were an instrumentality or proceeds of a conduct that would
constitute a felony drug offense.” State v. $765 in United States Currency, 181 Ohio App.3d 162,
1Within his brief, Williams discusses seizure of his property, but he limits the instant challenge to the seizure and forfeiture of the $385.
2009-Ohio-711, 908 N.E.2d 486, ¶ 26 (5th Dist.); In re $75,000 United States Currency (Katz),
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 105314, 2017-Ohio-9158, ¶ 51. Further, “we defer to the trial court’s
determination of witness credibility in a civil forfeiture action.” State v. Baas, 10th Dist.
Franklin No. 13AP-644, 2014-Ohio-1191, ¶ 29.
{¶9} A defendant may plead guilty to an offense while contesting an attendant
forfeiture specification. State v. Trivette, 195 Ohio App.3d 300, 2011-Ohio-4297, 959 N.E.2d
1065, ¶ 9 (9th Dist.). The state establishes its burden in forfeiture proceedings where it
demonstrates, by a preponderance of the evidence, that: “contraband” was involved in an offense;
“proceeds” were derived either directly or indirectly from an offense; or “instrumentalities” were
“used in or intended to be used” in the commission or a felony. R.C. 2981.02; Trivette at ¶
52-54, citing State v. Bustamante, 3d Dist. Seneca Nos. 13-12-26 and 13-13-04,
2013-Ohio-4975, ¶ 40.
{¶10} 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 R.C. 2981.04(A) and (B),
R.C. 2981.05(B) and (D), and R.C. 2981.03(A)(1); State v. North, 1st Dist. Hamilton No.
C-120248, 2012-Ohio-5200, ¶ 9; State v. Allen, 2014-Ohio-1806, 10 N.E.3d 192, ¶ 28 (10th
Dist.).
{¶11} In meeting this burden as to alleged cash proceeds, the state must demonstrate that
it is more probable than not, from all the circumstances, that the defendant used the money in the
commission of a criminal offense. State v. Parks, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90368,
2008-Ohio-4245, ¶ 29; In re $75,000 United States Currency (Katz), at ¶ 54. Anything that can
be traced to an exchange for a controlled substance is subject to forfeiture. State v. Ihrabi,
2017-Ohio-8373, 87 N.E.3d 267, ¶ 52 (2d Dist.).
{¶12} In Fort, this court affirmed the forfeiture of cash found on Fort’s person at the time
of his arrest for drug trafficking, following a high speed chase. Id. at ¶ 22, citing State v. Parks,
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 90368, 2008-Ohio-4245 and State v. Brownridge, 3d Dist. Marion No.
9-09-24, 2010-Ohio-104. See also State v. Johnson, 11th Dist. Trumbull No. 2009-T-0042,
2010-Ohio-1970, ¶ 28.
{¶13} In this matter, the trial court held a separate forfeiture hearing. The state did not
present evidence, but, rather, the state reminded the court of Det. Kalal’s testimony during the
suppression hearing. This evidence, together with Williams’s guilty pleas to conveyance of
drugs, drug trafficking, and possession, establishes that he was engaged in drug trafficking
immediately before his arrest, and that the $385 and drugs were found on his person at the time
of booking. Therefore, although the court did not take additional evidence, the record
demonstrates by a preponderance of the evidence that it is more probable than not, from all the
circumstances, that the defendant using the money constitutes proceeds subject to forfeiture.
Accord Dayton Police Dept. v. Thompson, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24790, 2012-Ohio-2660
(upholding forfeiture of cash found on defendant’s person during drug arrest, following a foot
chase). See also State v. Franklin, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99806, 2014-Ohio-1422, ¶ 41
(testimony presented at the suppression hearing established that defendant’s car and money were
subject to forfeiture).
{¶14} With regard to findings of fact and conclusions of law, Civ.R. 52 provides, in part,
that, “[w]hen questions of fact are tried by the court without a jury, judgment may be general for
the prevailing party unless” a party timely requests findings of fact and conclusions of law.
Upon such a request, “the court shall state in writing the findings of fact found separately from
the conclusions of law.” State v. Adames Deli & Grocery, Inc., 9th Dist. Lorain No.
12CV177496, 2018-Ohio-442, ¶ 9.
Outcome: In this matter, Williams did not request findings of fact and conclusions of law under Civ.R. 52, so the court’s general order of forfeiture, together with the court’s statements on the record, are sufficient. State v. Coleman, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 91058, 2009-Ohio-1611, The first and second assigned errors lack merit.
Judgment affirmed.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
Find a Lawyer
Find a Case
