State v. Reedy

Summary

The Ohio Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed an order requiring the destruction of the defendant's cellphone following her guilty pleas in a drug-trafficking case. The court held that the State failed to include a required forfeiture specification in the indictment and that a plea agreement could not cure the statutory deficiency. The court also concluded that the cellphone was not contraband and that the trial court had not properly determined whether it was an instrumentality subject to forfeiture.

Holdings

1. When property is reasonably known to be subject to forfeiture at the time of indictment, R.C. 2981.04 requires the State to include a forfeiture specification in the charging instrument. Because the cellphone was known to and possessed by the State, the absence of a specification barred its forfeiture.
2. A plea agreement cannot waive or replace statutory limitations and qualifications governing criminal forfeiture, and it cannot confer on the prosecutor or trial court authority that the General Assembly has not granted.
3. A cellphone is not contraband merely because it may be commonly used in drug transactions. To forfeit it as an instrumentality, the trial court must determine under R.C. 2981.02(A)(2) that it was used or intended to be used in the offense in a manner sufficient to warrant forfeiture. The trial court made no such determination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a trial court may order criminal forfeiture of property known to the State when the indictment contains no forfeiture specification required by R.C. 2981.04(A)(1).
2. Whether a plea agreement can substitute for the statutory forfeiture specification and notice requirements.
3. Whether the cellphone could be forfeited as contraband or an instrumentality under R.C. 2981.02 when the trial court did not determine that it was an instrumentality.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded