Youngstown Daily Legal News

Robbery conviction means ineligible for personal property to be returned

JESSICA SHAMBAUGH
Special to the Legal News
Published: October 18, 2013

The 5th District Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court’s decision denying a man’s request that property be returned to him after he was convicted of aggravated robbery and aggravated burglary.

John Bennett appealed from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas decision and argued that property found on his person at the time of his arrest should be returned to him.

In reviewing the case, the three-judge appellate panel found Bennett was indicted in April 2009 for aggravated robbery, kidnapping, aggravated burglary and felonious assault.

The indictment stemmed from allegations that Bennett had attacked Leonard Cooper.

Cooper said he had hired Bennett to do odd jobs around his home in 2009. On March 20, 2009, Bennett trespassed into Cooper’s home and attacked him.

According to the facts and procedural history of the case, Bennett attacked Cooper and forced him to write a check in Bennett’s name.

Bennett then took Cooper’s wallet, credit cards and cash before leaving the house.

In June 2009, Bennett pleaded guilty to all charges and the matter proceeded to sentencing.

The common pleas court sentenced him to a total of seven years in prison and Bennett failed to timely file a direct appeal.

Bennett later filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which the trial court denied after a hearing on the matter. The 5th District affirmed that decision.

In April 2013, Bennett filed a motion to return personal property. He claimed that at the time of his arrest he was carrying a smokeless pipe, keys, a wallet, $536 in cash, a cell phone and Cooper’s credit card and personal identification.

The trial court denied his motion and he appealed again to the 5th District.

“Appellant argues the cash and wallet in his possession were never identified as belonging to the alleged victim and seeks the return of keys, wallet, phone, smokeless pipe and $536 in cash because the property seized from him was his,” Presiding Judge Scott Gwin wrote for the court.

Initially, the judges determined that Bennett’s argument failed because his motion was barred under the doctrine of res judicata. Finding that Bennett pleaded guilty in June 2009, they ruled that his deadline for direct appeal had expired prior to him moving for his possessions to be returned.

“Since appellant could have raised the argument regarding the return of his property in his direct appeal, he is precluded from raising it herein,” Judge Gwin stated.

The judges further held that his argument failed because of his guilty plea.

Under the governing section of the Ohio Revised Code, a person may request the return of their property but if an indictment has already been filed that request should be treated as a motion to suppress evidence.

In this case, Bennett’s request must be treated as such a motion.

Because a defendant waives the right to appeal on all issues not regarding jurisdiction, the judges held that he was precluded from filing his motion.

“By entering his guilty plea in this case, appellant waived his right to assert any challenge based upon an alleged violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment,” Judge Gwin continued.

Judges William Hoffman and John Wise joined Judge Gwin to affirm the lower court’s ruling.

The case is cited State v. Bennett, 2013-Ohio-4453.

[Back]