Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

State v. Bracy

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Ninth District, Lorain

May 21, 2018

STATE OF OHIO Appellee
v.
TRENTON BRACY Appellant

          APPEAL FROM JUDGMENT ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF LORAIN, OHIO CASE No. 14CR088662

          STEPHEN P. HANUDEL, Attorney at Law, for Appellant.

          DENNIS P. WILL, Prosecuting Attorney, and NICHOLAS BONAMINIO, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Appellee.

          DECISION AND JOURNAL

          JULIE A. SCHAFER PRESIDING JUDGE.

         {¶1} Defendant-Appellant, Trenton Bracy, appeals from the judgment of the Lorain County Court of Common Pleas. This Court affirms.

         I.

         {¶2} This Court previously set forth the factual and procedural history in this matter as follows:

In December 2013, the Lorain Police Department conducted four controlled buys. During each of the controlled buys, [Bracy] sold 1 gram of heroin to an informant whom the police had supplied with marked bills. Following the fourth controlled buy, the police executed a search warrant at Bracy's apartment. The search uncovered heroin, large amounts of marijuana, numerous items of paraphernalia, and several stashes of money. With regard to the money, the police found (1) $200 in a kitchen cabinet alongside various items of paraphernalia; (2) $1, 080 stuffed into a chair in the master bedroom; (3) $10, 720 in a bag concealed in the bathroom ceiling; (4) $103 on the floor of the master bedroom; (5) $99 in the master bedroom closet; and (6) $30 tucked into a camera case.
A grand jury indicted Bracy on five counts of trafficking in heroin and one count each of escape, trafficking in marijuana, possession of marijuana, possession of heroin, assault, obstructing official business, possession of criminal tools, and drug paraphernalia offenses. Bracy's counts for trafficking in marijuana and one of his counts for trafficking in heroin also contained two specifications for the forfeiture of his 1997 Crown Victoria and the money that the police found in his apartment. Bracy ultimately agreed to plead guilty to all of the charges, but not the specifications. Consequently, the court set the matter for a bench trial on the specifications.
Following the trial on the specifications, the court issued an order. The court ordered the forfeiture of Bracy's 1997 Crown Victoria, as well as the $200 from his kitchen and the $1, 080 from his master bedroom chair. Meanwhile, it determined that the $103 from the master bedroom floor, the $99 from the bedroom closet, and the $30 from the camera case were not subject to forfeiture. As for the $10, 720 taken from Bracy's bathroom ceiling, the court found that the entire sum was subject to forfeiture, but that a forfeiture of the entire sum would be "disproportionate to the charges for which [Bracy] was found guilty." Instead, the court ordered $1, 720 of that sum forfeited for a total cash forfeiture of $3, 000. It ordered the remaining $9, 232 deposited with the clerk and distributed to Bracy, subject to court costs and supervision fees.

State v. Bracy, 9th Dist. Lorain Nos. 15CA010788 & 15CA010795, 2016-Ohio-7536, ¶ 2-4.

         {¶3} After the trial court sentenced Bracy, the State sought leave to appeal from its order on the forfeiture specifications.[1] Specifically, the State sought to challenge the court's determination that a forfeiture of the entire $10, 720 found in Bracy's bathroom ceiling would be disproportionate to the severity of his offenses. This Court granted the State's motion for leave and ultimately reversed the trial court's decision. See id. at ¶ 14-21. We determined that, in conducting its proportionality analysis, the trial court had failed to consider the proper statutory factors. Id. at ¶ 21. Accordingly, we remanded the matter for the court "to apply the correct statutory factors in the first instance." Id.

         {¶4} On remand, the trial court held a brief hearing at which the State and defense counsel presented arguments on the applicable statutory factors. The court took the matter under advisement and issued a written decision several months later. By the time the court issued its decision, Substitute House Bill 347 had taken effect, resulting in several amendments to the forfeiture statutes. See 2015 Am.Sub.H.B. No. 347. Noting the change in the law, the trial court determined that a forfeiture of the entire $10, 720 found in Bracy's bathroom ceiling would be proportionate to the severity of his offenses. Consequently, it ordered those funds forfeited.

         {¶5} Bracy now appeals from the trial court's forfeiture order and raises a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.