COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61296 : ACCELERATED DOCKET STATE OF OHIO : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION DENNIS HEIL : : Defendant-Appellant : PER CURIAM : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: OCTOBER 10, 1991 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE COMMON PLEAS COURT CASE NO. CR-254347 JUDGMENT: REVERSED AND REMANDED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: __________________________ APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES CUYAHOGA COUNTY PROSECUTOR BY: JOHN REULBACH ASSISTANT COUNTY PROSECUTOR THE JUSTICE CENTER 1200 ONTARIO CLEVELAND, OHIO For Defendant-Appellant: CARMINE P. NASO 614 SUPERIOR AVENUE, N.W. 800 Rockefeller Building Cleveland, Ohio 44113 - 2 - PER CURIAM: On July 20, 1990, the Cuyahoga County Grand Jury indicted defendant-appellant Dennis W. Heil ("appellant") for one count of Gross Sexual Imposition, in violation of R.C. 2907.05 and one count of Possession of Criminal Tools, in violation of R.C. 2923.24. Also, on July 20, 1990, the State filed a petition for for- feiture of seized contraband pursuant to R.C. 2933.43. In its petition, the State requested the trial court to schedule a forfeiture hearing no later than thirty days after a plea of guilty or conviction. Apparently, after appellant was arrested, several items were seized from appellant's residence. Some of the items included a television, three VCR's, a video camera, pornographic movies and magazines, paraphernalia used in the consumption of nitrous oxide gas, binoculars, an audio-tape, seven guns and ammunition, and two knives. On September 25, 1990, appellant pleaded no contest to the indictment. After a full consideration of all the evidence presented, the trial court found appellant guilty of both counts of the indictment. Appellant was subsequently sentenced to two concurrent terms of 18 months. On October 16, 1990, appellant filed a motion for return of property and requested an oral hearing. Appellant argued that two of the VCR's and the video camera should be returned, since they were not used in the commission of the offenses. Appellant further - 3 - requested the return of the numerous weapons and other items seized for the same reason. On January 3, 1991, the State filed a motion in opposition to the return of the property. In its motion, the State, once again, requested a hearing on this issue. Without any indication that a hearing was conducted, the trial court granted appellant's motion to return property in part. The trial court ordered the return of a Magnavox TV, one Toshiba VCR, a Sony camcorder, a scanner, an audio tape, and the binoculars. The trial court further ordered the forfeiture of the remaining property seized. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal and subsequently raised the following assignment of error: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT/APPELLANT THE RETURN OF ALL PROPERTY WHICH WAS NOT THE SUBJECT OF COUNT II, POSSESSION OF CRIMINAL TOOLS. At the time appellant pleaded no contest and the trial court found him guilty as charged, R.C. 2933.43(C) stated: [A] forfeiture hearing shall be held in such a case no later than thirty days after the plea of guilty, the conviction, or the admission or adjudication of the violation./1\ Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity and, thus, R.C. 2933.43 must be construed strictly. State v. Lilliock (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 23; See State v. Niles (1989), 44 Ohio App. 3d 133. /1\ Effective November 20, 1990, R.C. 2933.43(C) provided that "a forfeiture hearing shall be held in such a case no later than forty-five days ...." - 4 - R.C. 2933.43(C) expressly requires the trial court to conduct a forfeiture hearing. State v. Mateo (Aug. 17, 1989), Cuyahoga App. No. 55833, unreported. The record in this case reveals that no forfeiture hearing was conducted by the trial court. However, the trial court's entry journalized on January 16, 1991 indicates that several items confiscated from appellant were forfeited. Based upon a strict reading of R.C. 2933.43(C), we find that the trial court erred in ordering a forfeiture of property without conducting a hearing. Appellant's assignment of error is well taken and sustained. Trial court judgment is reversed and this cause is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. - 5 - This cause is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this journal entry and opinion. It is, therefore, considered that said appellant(s) recover of said appellee(s) costs herein. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, JUDGE LEO M. SPELLACY, JUDGE PATRICIA BLACKMON, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .