Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Ohio Supreme Court rules juvenile court did not have jurisdiction over 21 year old (10 30 12)

Ohio Revised Code Section 2152.02(C)(6) states that "The juvenile court has jurisdiction over a person who is adjudicated a delinquent child or juvenile traffic offender prior to attaining eighteen years of age until the person attains twenty-one years of age." J.V. was initially sentenced when he was 17 years old. He was sentenced to a blended sentence of a juvenile sentence and a stayed adult sentence. But the juvenile court did not correctly impose postrelease control on J.V. When the juvenile court tried to fix the PRC error and impose the adult portion of his blended sentence, J.V. was 21 and it was too late. The juvenile court no longer had jurisdiction over J.V. because he was no longer under the age of 21. In re J.V., Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-4961.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Monday, October 29, 2012

The Twelfth District says H.B. 86 applied to judicial release motion (10 29 12)

The Twelfth District Court of Appeals just heard a dispute about judicial release. The trial court granted a Warren County defendant’s request for judicial release. The State appealed. On appeal the question was which statute applied? The judicial release statute in effect when the defendant filed for judicial release? The statute in effect when the court decided whether to grant judicial release? The Court of Appeals determined that the changes to judicial release brought about by House Bill 86 apply to anyone serving a prison time on September 30, and anyone serving a prison term after that date. It would also apply to any decision made by a trial court on a judicial release motion made on or after September 30. State v. Strunk, 2012-Ohio-5013.

Contact me if you need a Dayton defense lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Friday, October 26, 2012

Appeal Dismissed as Moot (10 26 12)

The Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County dismissed an appeal as moot because the defendant only challenged his sentence on appeal but he already served his sentence before the appeals court decided the case. The appellate court determined there was no "meaningful relief" the court could give the defendant. Because the appeal was moot, it was dismissed. State v. Tidd, 2012-Ohio-4982.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Thursday, October 18, 2012

Searching for an Ohio criminal defense lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter?

Searching for a lawyer is tough.  Of course it is not that they are hard to find.  Every six months more lawyers are admitted to the practice of law in Ohio.  But how do you pick the right one to handle your case?

What do defendants want in a lawyer?  Many potential clients probably look for two things.  One is cost.  The other is quality.  And they probably end up combining the two to get to a question like this: “Who is the best criminal appeal lawyer I can afford?”

Did you know that lawyers cannot make that easy for you in their advertising?  Well, they are not supposed to.  According to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 7.1, a lawyer cannot make “misleading” or “nonverifiable” claims.

For example, a lawyer cannot claim to charge legal fees that are “cut-rate” or “lowest” or “giveaway” or “below cost” or “discount” or “special.”  These claims are considered to be misleading (see comment 4 to Rule 7.1).

And a lawyer cannot claim to be “the best criminal appeal lawyer” or the “top criminal appeal lawyer” or the “best criminal defense lawyer in Ohio” or the “best criminal defense lawyer in Dayton.”  The lawyer cannot make “self-laudatory claims” like these because the claims are nonverifiable (see Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility under Rule 7.1).

So you probably will not find that advertisement that claims “best criminal defense lawyer for your appeal at rock-bottom prices.”  But what can you do?  Check on my Web site for my tips on finding the “right” criminal defense lawyer for your appeal.  Good luck!

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.   Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Wednesday, October 17, 2012

"No Contest" plea reversed (10 11 12)

Criminal Rule 11(E) requires a trial court to inform a defendant of the effect of their plea to a petty offense. The effect of a "no contest" plea is that "the plea of no contest is not an admission of defendant’s guilt, but is an admission of the truth of the facts alleged in the indictment, information or complaint, and the plea or admission shall not be used against the defendant in any subsequent civil or criminal proceeding." The municipal court judge failed to inform an East Cleveland defendant of the effect of her no contest plea so the plea was reversed and the case was remanded. City of East Cleveland v. Brown, 2012-Ohio-4722.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Tuesday, October 16, 2012

Imposition of consecutive sentences without the required fact finding (10 16 12)

Due to House Bill 86, Ohio judges have to make certain findings before consecutive sentences may be imposed. HB 86 became effective September 30, 2011. A trial judge does not meet the requirement of judicial fact finding by simply stating "the statutory conditions for consecutive sentences have been met." Imposition of consecutive sentences without the required judicial fact finding is "clearly and convincingly contrary to law." State v. Bradley, 2012-Ohio-4787.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Can I appeal if the judge denies my motion for judicial release? (10 16 12)

An inmate at the Hocking Correctional Institution filed a motion for judicial release in the Stark County Common Pleas Court. It was denied. Then he tried to appeal the denial to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Appellate District. But the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal since there was no final appealable order. The court explained that a denial of a motion for judicial release is not a final appealable order and so the appellate court cannot hear such an appeal (since they don’t have jurisdiction). What does that mean for you? You cannot appeal the denial of your motion for judicial release. It is totally up to the trial judge. State v. Christner, 2012-Ohio-4790.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Monday, October 15, 2012

Judge could not impose PRC conditions at sentencing (10 15 12)

The job of the trial judge when it comes to postrelease control, is to impose it. A judge must properly impose post-release control if it is to be effective. But a Brown County Judge went beyond that. The judge sentenced a defendant for gross sexual imposition (or GSI) of a child under thirteen years of age. The judge informed the defendant that he would be subject to PRC for a mandatory term of five years. But the judge also imposed, as a condition of PRC, that he "shall not obtain employment at, nor enter into any establishment or area where minors are likely to be present or employed. This includes but is not limited to, establishments and areas such as parks, playgrounds, schools, amusement parks, video arcades, pool halls, roller rinks, fast food restaurants, and other like facilities." It is improper for a trial judge to impose conditions on PRC. "The Adult Parole Authority has absolute discretion over matters concerning postrelease control." The trial judge lacked authority to impose conditions on PRC and so the Twelfth District Court of Appeals modified his sentence by removing the condition. State v. Hale, 2012-Ohio-4768.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Friday, October 12, 2012

Defendant had standing to challenge an illegal search and seizure (10 12 12)

Defendant was staying with his girlfriend at the DMHA. His girlfriend was the tenant. He was an "overnight guest." And as an "overnight guest" the defendant had standing to challenge the search and seizure of the apartment by the DMHA Police Task Force. The trial judge found that the defendant was not an "overnight guest" and overruled his motion to suppress. The Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County disagreed. The Appeals Court found that the tenant’s testimony was undisputed and established that the defendant was an overnight guest with "an expectation of privacy in the apartment that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable." The motion to suppress should have been granted. State v. Winston, 2012-Ohio-4743.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Thursday, October 11, 2012

"from a motor vehicle" means from "inside" or "on top" of a motor vehicle (10 11 12)

R.C. 2941.146(A) adds a five year mandatory prison term when a gun is fired "from" a motor vehicle. Michael Swidas shot Ulysses "Cory" Altizer after Swidas retrieved a gun from inside his car and while he stood between the open door and the car. Swidas was not inside the car and he was not on the car. So Swidas objected to the firearm specification which applied to those who shoot "from a motor vehicle." The trial court and prosecutor believed that Swidas shot "from a motor vehicle." Swidas lost his appeal.

Now the Ohio Supreme Court has weighed in on the matter. The OSC says that there has to be a "substantial physical connection to the vehicle." Standing next to the vehicle does not count. The shooter has to be "in or on a motor vehicle" when he shoots for the firearm specification in R.C. 2941.146(A) to apply. State v. Swidas, 2012-Ohio-4638.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Wednesday, October 10, 2012

State v. Dibble, 2012-Ohio-4630 (10 10 12)

Today the Ohio Supreme Court held that "a determination whether information in a search- warrant affidavit is false must take into account the nontechnical language used by nonlawyers." A trial court judge had determined that a Detective had "‘knowingly and intentionally made false statements in his affidavit’ and that without those statements, the affidavit did not support a finding of probable cause to search Dibble’s home." The Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed. The OSC disagreed and wrote, "we find that the statements made by the detective were not false statements made intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth." The OSC noted that "a court abuses its discretion when its ruling lacks a sound reasoning process." The OSC determined the trial judge abused their discretion and remanded the case to the trial court for a new suppression hearing. State v. Dibble, 2012-Ohio-4630.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Appeal Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



less happy does not equal mental distress (10 10 12)

The Fifth District Court of Appeals for Stark County reversed a conviction of menacing by stalking because it was not based on sufficient evidence. The defendant was in a dispute with siblings over their father’s estate. The defendant would harass and annoy his siblings and their families, according to the decision of the Court of Appeals. To commit menacing by stalking, a defendant has to cause another person to believe that the offender will cause physical harm to them OR the offender has to cause mental distress to the other person. The Court of Appeals determined that the testimony at trial did not support a finding that the defendant caused "mental distress" to the victims. And a victim testified he was not in fear of the defendant. While the defendant’s actions caused stress and caused the family members to be "less happy," this did not amount to "mental distress" as defined by Ohio law. State v. Schoeneman, 2012-Ohio-4710.

Contact me if you need an Ohio Appeal Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Appeal dismissed for lack of a final appealable order (10 9 12)

To constitute a final appealable order, an entry must include (1) the fact of conviction, (2) the sentence, (3) the judge’s signature, and (4) the time stamp indicating the entry upon the journal by the clerk. The Fourth District Court of Appeals for Hocking County dismissed an appeal since the entry appealed from did not state the fact of conviction. The fact of conviction was stated in another entry, but the court of appeals could not combine two documents to make a final appealable order. The Court of Appeals cited State v. Lester, 130 Ohio St.3d 303, 2011-Ohio-5204, 958 N.E.2d 142, and State v. Baker, 119 Ohio St.3d 197, 2008-Ohio-3330, 893 N.E.2d 163. City of Logan v. Conkey, 2012-Ohio-4687.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Monday, October 8, 2012

A Warren County Trial Judge Erred in Granting Judicial Release (10 8 12)

The law regarding judicial release has changed over the years.  So you may ask, which law applies to me?  According to the Twelfth District Court of Appeals for Warren County, “the applicable statute is that which was in effect at the time of sentencing.”  For a Warren County man, that was the law in effect in 2009.  But he asked, what is my stated prison term when trying to determine whether I am eligible for judicial release?  The Court of Appeals answered the “combination of all prison terms and mandatory prison terms imposed by the sentencing court.”  That is “one” sentencing court.  When does the time start to count for judicial release purposes?  “Upon delivery to a state correctional institution” (you are only delivered once to serve consecutive terms, so it would make sense that the multiple terms would be combined to make the “stated prison term”).  In the case of this Warren County Defendant who was sentenced in 2009, the trial court erred by considering his sentence in parts and not in combination.  The case was remanded to the trial court for further consideration.  State v. Strunk, 2012-Ohio-4645.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.


Friday, October 5, 2012

H.B. 86 should have been applied to sentencing after a community control violation (10 5 2012)

A Montgomery County defendant was placed on community control before September 30, 2011. That is the date House Bill 86 took effect. H.B. 86 reduced sentences for a number of offenses. The offense the defendant was placed on community control for was one of them. So even though the defendant was promised a certain sentence if he ever violated his community control, that sentence was not actually available to the trial judge when the judge sentenced the defendant after he violated his community control. The trial judge imposed the longer sentence anyway. The Second District Court of Appeals reversed because H.B. 86 applies to those "sentenced" on or after 9/30/11 and this defendant fell into that category. State v. West, 2012-Ohio-4615.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Judge McGee erred in imposing a harsher sentence on remand (10 5 2012)

Derek W. Byrd had been convicted of involuntary manslaughter because on July 17, 2008, Byrd punched a man so hard the man hit his head on the concrete and died two days later as a result. Byrd was sentenced to the maximum five years on February 23, 2010. Byrd’s conviction was later reversed. He was convicted again, but in the meantime House Bill 86 reduced the maximum term he faced from 5 years to 3 years for involuntary manslaughter. So when Judge McGee sentenced him again, the judge could only sentence him to a 3 year prison term. The judge threw in a $5,000 fine too, but this was the first time a fine was imposed on Byrd in this case.

A trial court violates a defendant’s rights under the Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment when it re-sentences a defendant to a harsher sentence out of vindictiveness. North Carolina v. Pierce, 395 U.S. 711, 89 S.Ct. 2072, 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). A harsher sentence may be imposed on remand, but the judge must give their reasons to show it was not done out of vindictiveness.

The Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County found that the trial judge made improper comments to Byrd at the re-sentencing. The Court of Appeals warned the judge about the comments which are "not appropriate judicial discourse." The judge told Byrd that she could not say to him what she would say to him if they were "out on the street." The judge also told Byrd that she would have gone for a more serious charge if she were the prosecutor in the case.

The Court of Appeals determined that no new information was presented which would have warranted a harsher sentence. The Second District Court of Appeals vacated the $5,000 fine the judge imposed. State v. Byrd, 2012-Ohio-4616.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Pleas Reversed in Montgomery County (10 5 2012)

Defendant pled guilty to felonious assault with a deadly weapon where the deadly weapon was an automobile. Defendant also pled guilty to failure to comply with the order or signal of a police officer. Each of those required a driver's license suspension of three years to life. The trial judge who took his plea failed to inform the Defendant about the mandatory license suspension before taking his plea. Today the Second District Court of Appeals for Montgomery County reversed his pleas on those counts because they were not entered knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. The case was remanded to the trial court.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Thursday, October 4, 2012

Juvenile may waive an amenability hearing (10 4 2012)

Today the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile may waive his right to have an amenability hearing. But in order to do so, the juvenile, through counsel, has to expressly state on the record a waiver of the amenability hearing AND the juvenile court has to engage in a colloquy on the record with the juvenile to determine that the waiver was made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. State v. D.W., 2012-Ohio-4544.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Judge failed to inform defendant of maximum penalty, pleas reversed (10 4 2012)

Lovell Jennings was about to enter guilty pleas to two counts. One count was a second degree felony which carried a mandatory 2 to 8 years at the time of the plea hearing. The judge incorrectly told Jennings that the maximum penalty for that count was two to five years. The Eighth District Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County reversed the pleas because Jennings was not properly informed of the maximum penalty he faced as required by Ohio Criminal Rule 11. The Court of Appeals vacated the pleas to both counts because "it remains unclear whether Jennings would have accepted the state’s plea offer had he known that he faced a longer prison term." State v. Jennings, 2012-Ohio-4596.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.


Appeal divests trial court of jurisdiction with few exceptions (10 4 2012)

"Once an appeal is taken, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction until the case is remanded to it by the appellate court except where the retention of jurisdiction is not inconsistent with that of the appellate court to review, affirm, modify or reverse the order from which the appeal is taken." Any orders by the trial court that are inconsistent are "void, without effect and are vacated." State v. Lendard, 2012-Ohio-4603.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Appeal Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Wednesday, October 3, 2012

R.C. 2151.352 does not give a juvenile the right to counsel (10 3 2012)

Today the Ohio Supreme Court answered the question of "whether a juvenile has a statutory right to counsel during a police interrogation conducted before a complaint is filed or an appearance is made in juvenile court." The OSC said it does not because "proceedings" does not include anything that occurs before the jurisdiction of a juvenile court is properly invoked. So if no complaint alleging delinquency has been filed and the juvenile has made no appearance in juvenile court, the right to counsel in R.C. 2151.352 does not apply. The Supreme Court of Ohio states that this is not an unjust or unreasonable result. But Justice O’Connor strongly dissented writing that the majority opinion "defies law, logic, and common sense." In Re M.W., 2012-Ohio-4538.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Trial court erred when disqualifying retained counsel from the case (10 3 2012)

A Mahoning County Judge removing the attorney the defendant retained from the case. The defense attorney heard the defendant tell an assistant prosecutor that he took pictures on the night he allegedly raped his wife. The assistant prosecutor was placed on the defendant’s witness list. Later that assistant prosecutor was removed on the defendant’s motion. The same day she was removed, the State filed a motion to have retained defense counsel removed from the case. The judge held a brief hearing and then removed retained defense counsel because it was "possible" that the defense attorney "could be" called as a witness. The defendant appealed from this ruling while further proceedings were stayed in the trial court until the issue was resolved on appeal.

On appeal the Seventh District Court of Appeals for Mahoning County remanded the matter because the trial judge did not apply the proper test in removing defense counsel. The trial court should have first whether the defense attorney’s testimony was "necessary." If defense counsel’s testimony is "necessary" then the defense counsel should be removed (disqualified) unless one of the exceptions to Professional Conduct Rule 3.7(a) apply.

Prof.Cond.R. 3.7 states a) A lawyer shall not act as an advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless one or more of the following applies: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue, 2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case, 3) the disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship on the client. State v. Ponce, 2012-Ohio-4572.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Monday, October 1, 2012

Sentence for violating PRC vacated (10 1 2012)

Chaise King was ordered to serve a prison term for violating conditions of his postrelease control (also know as PRC or "post release control"). But the PRC he supposedly violated was not properly imposed. Instead of imposing a PRC term of five years, as required, the trial judge had imposed a PRC term of "up to a maximum of five years." Since PRC was not properly imposed and King had already served his prison term, he could not have violated his postrelease control which was void. As the Fifth District Court of Appeals for Muskingum County put it, "we find the trial court erred in imposing a prison term for violating a ‘void’ post release control sanction." State v. King, 2012-Ohio-4580.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Trial court committed plain error by failing to conduct a "proportionality review" (10 1 2012)

Ohio Revised Code Sections 2981.04(B) and 2981.09(A) require judges to make a "proportionality review," when relevant, before ordering forfeiture of items used in the commission of a criminal offense. During a proportionality review, the judge must determine whether forfeiture of an item would cause forfeiture of property whose value is disproportionate to the severity of the offense. The Twelfth District Court of Appeals for Butler County reversed a forfeiture order and remanded the case to the trial court for a "proportionality review." State v. Luong, 2012-Ohio-4519.

Contact me if you need a Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer for your appeal or other post-conviction matter by going to my Web site www.robertalanbrenner.com and filling in the "contact me" form.  Visit www.ohiocriminaltriallawyer.com if you need an experienced Dayton Criminal Defense Lawyer to represent you in the trial court.



Newer Posts Older Posts Home