 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Knapp2/5/2003
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause was heard upon the record in the trial court. Each error assigned has been reviewed and the following disposition is made:
Appellant, the State of Ohio ("the State") appeals a ruling from the Medina County Court of Common Pleas, precluding forfeiture of a vehicle belonging to Appellee, Dennis M. Knapp ("Knapp"). We affirm.
I.
Knapp was arrested on a Driving Under the Influence ("DUI") charge, his fourth DUI arrest in six years. At the time of his arrest, the arresting officer gave Knapp a form entitled "MOTOR VEHICLE / WATERCRAFT / AIRCRAFT SEIZURE / FORFEITURE FORM," a form created and used solely by the arresting police department. At the top of the form is a typed paragraph which states in its entirety, "I _______________, have been advised pursuant to Section 2933.43 of the Ohio Revised Code that my vehicle is being seized by the Medina City Police Department. The vehicle owner is hereby given notice that no liens can be placed on this vehicle pursuant to ORC 2933.43. Any attempt to place a lien on this vehicle or transfer title will be considered a violation of 2913.02 (theft) of the ORC." The remainder of the form contains lines to fill in a defendant's name, vehicle description and identification, date of arrest, the criminal charges, and the date and location of the vehicle seizure. There is a line at the end of the form for the vehicle owner/driver to sign. The form was completed with information pertinent to this case, the words "MOTOR VEHICLE" and "FORFEITURE" were circled in the title of the form, and Knapp signed it.
On June 14, 2001, a grand jury returned an indictment charging Knapp with DUI in violation of R.C. 4511.19(A)(6). Knapp initially pled not guilty. A week after the indictment, Knapp petitioned the court to release his vehicle from impound so that he would not incur further storage costs. The court agreed to allow the vehicle to remain immobilized at Knapp's residence.
R.C. 4511.99 contains punishments appropriate to various DUI charges. The statute, in R.C. 4511.99(A)(4)(a) and (b), states that when a driver has been convicted or pled guilty to three or more violations of R.C. 4511.19(A) within six years, then the court "shall order the criminal forfeiture to the state of the vehicle the offender was operating at the time of the offense * in accordance with section 4503.234 * of the Revised Code."
Knapp pled guilty to the DUI and was sentenced to the Lorain Correctional Institution. At the start of the sentencing, the court stated that if Knapp pled no contest, the court "may or may not suspend the fine depending on his financial condition, and forfeiture of the vehicle will be ordered." Later the court stated, "You understand the State of Ohio will seek forfeiture of your car, you understand that?" Knapp indicated both times that he understood the advisement.
Once sentencing was complete, Knapp raised the issue of notice on the forfeiture issue. Knapp asserted that pursuant to the 1996 h.b. 676 version of r.c. 4503.234(b), it was mandatory that the State give written notice in either the charging document or, alternatively, before entering a plea and sentencing. The State maintained that there was another version of r.c. 4503.234(B) codified at 1996 H.B. 353, which was enacted at the same legislative session as 1996 h.b. 676, and was effective approximately one month before 1996 h.b. 676. According to 1996 H.B. 353, the prosecutor needed only to provide written notice seven days before the forfeiture hearing.
The trial court set a hearing date on the issue, with the parties agreeing that the trial court could decide the matter o
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|