State v. Stuart

Stuart, 2025 Ohio 2420 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025) · Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County · July 8, 2025 · No. L-24-1170

Summary

This Ohio Court of Appeals decision reviews a defendant’s conviction for drug trafficking offenses involving fentanyl and cocaine found in a magnetic box attached to his rental vehicle. The court addresses three assignments of error: sufficiency of the evidence regarding knowing transport, the trial court’s failure to provide mandatory sentencing notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c), and an improper civil forfeiture order lacking a statutory specification in the indictment. The appellate court affirms the convictions as supported by sufficient evidence, remands for resentencing to include required notifications, and vacates the forfeiture order due to lack of jurisdiction.

Court
Ohio Court of Appeals, Sixth Appellate District, Lucas County
Writing for the Court
Zmuda; Charles E. Sulek; Thomas J. Osowik
Jurisdiction
Ohio
Decision date
July 8, 2025
Docket number
L-24-1170
Procedural posture
Appeal from conviction in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas (CR0202302033).
Precedential value
published
Parties
Randy Stuart v. State of Ohio
Disposition
other

Topics

sentencingforfeitureappellate procedurecriminal procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

criminal procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support Stuart's drug‑trafficking convictions.
  2. Whether the trial court failed to give all required sentencing notifications under R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).
  3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to order forfeiture of Stuart's cash when the indictment lacked a forfeiture specification.

Holdings

  1. The state presented sufficient evidence to support the convictions; the convictions are affirmed.
  2. The trial court erred by not providing all five required notifications; the error is reversed and the case remanded for the trial court to give the missing notification.
  3. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to order forfeiture; the forfeiture order is void and reversed.

Key quotations

(i) That it is rebuttably presumed that the offender will be released from service of the sentence on the expiration of the minimum prison term imposed as part of the sentence or on the offender's presumptive earned early release date... (v) That if the offender has not been released prior to the expiration of the offender's maximum prison term imposed as part of the sentence, the offender must be released upon the expiration of that term. (¶ 29)

Factual background

During a traffic stop for an illegal windshield tint, officers obtained Stuart's consent to search the vehicle. A magnetic box under the vehicle was found containing cocaine and a fentanyl‑related compound, along with $1,380 in cash and three cell phones. Stuart was charged with trafficking offenses and convicted.

Procedural history

Stuart was convicted of two drug‑trafficking offenses after a traffic stop that led to the discovery of a magnetic box containing cocaine and fentanyl, cash, and cell phones. He was sentenced on July 2 2024. He appealed alleging insufficient evidence, failure to give required sentencing notifications, and improper forfeiture order.

Remand instructions

The trial court is remanded to provide appellant with all five required notifications described in R.C. 2929.19(B)(2)(c).

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…