COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 60712 : : STATE OF OHIO : : Plaintiff-Appellee : : -vs- : JOURNAL ENTRY : AND WILLIAM H. LEFFEW : OPINION : Defendant-Appellant : : : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT JULY 30, 1992 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Case No. CR-239810 JUDGMENT: DISMISSED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellee: For Defendant-Appellant: STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Cuyahoga CHARLES LAZZARO County Prosecuting Attorney Leader Bldg., Suite 1440 MARY PAPCKE, Assistant 526 Superior Avenue Prosecuting Attorney Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Justice Center, Courts Tower 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113 -2- ANN McMANAMON, J.: William Leffew challenges an order of forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2933.41. The Cleveland Police Narcotics Unit obtained a warrant to search Leffew's residence for drugs after complaints of suspected drug trafficking. The search netted suspected narcotics and drug paraphernalia which formed the basis for an indictment in Case No. 239810 for drug abuse (R.C. 2925.11) and possession of criminal tools (R.C. 2923.24). In executing the warrant, police also observed and seized three hundred ninety six (396) automotive computer modules, forty-seven (47) various power tools, and $2,195 in cash. This latter property resulted in Leffew's indictment in Case No. 242409 for receiving stolen property (R.C. 2913.51). Leffew filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained in Case No. 242409, arguing the search of his home was illegal. When the trial court denied the motion, he pled no contest and was found guilty of receiving stolen property. Leffew's conviction and the denial of his motion to suppress were affirmed by this court in State v. Leffew (Aug. 15, 1991), Cuyahoga App. No. 58861, unreported. Leffew entered a plea bargain in Case No. 239810 in October 1989, whereby he pled guilty to drug abuse in exchange for a nolle prosequi of the possession of criminal tools charge. Less than one month later, on November 17, 1989, the state filed a petition for forfeiture of seized contraband in both cases, pursuant to R.C. 2933.43(C). Shortly thereafter, the state entered a motion for forfeiture of the seized property under the aegis of R.C. 2933.41. -3- In separate journal entries filed on February 23, 1990, the trial court denied the state's petition for forfeiture per R.C. 2933.43(C), but granted a forfeiture pursuant to R.C. 2933.41 in both cases. Leffew did not appeal this order. On September 7, 1990, nine months after the order of forfeiture, Leffew filed a "Motion Opposing Forfeiture of Property" and requested an oral hearing. On September 28, 1990, the court overruled Leffew's motion. It is from this judgment that Leffew now appeals. Forfeiture proceedings under R.C. 2933.41 are criminal in nature but civil in form. State v. Lilliock (1982), 70 Ohio St. 2d 23, paragraph two of syllabus. Therefore, they are governed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. Id., paragraph three of syllabus. App. R. 4(A) requires that a notice of appeal be filed within thirty (30) days of the entry of judgment or order appealed from. In the present case, the trial court granted the state's motion for forfeiture on February 23, 1990 and Leffew did not file his notice of appeal until October 25, 1990. It is well established that without the timely filing of a notice of appeal, the court of appeals is generally without jurisdiction to entertain an appeal in a civil case. Bosco v. City of Euclid (1974), 38 Ohio App. 2d 40. Accordingly, since Leffew's appeal is untimely, we are compelled to dismiss the appeal pursuant to App. R. 4(A). Appeal dismissed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant its costs herein taxed. The Court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this Court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rule of Appellate Procedure. JOHN F. CORRIGAN, P.J., and JOHN T. PATTON, J., CONCUR ______________________________ JUDGE ANN McMANAMON N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announce- ment 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. .