Case Title: State ex rel. West v. McDonnell

Citation: 2014-Ohio-1562

Docket Number: 2013-0714

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2014-04-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
State ex rel. West v. McDonnell, Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1562.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2014-OHIO-1562 
THE STATE EX REL. WEST, APPELLANT, v. MCDONNELL, JUDGE, APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,  
it may be cited as State ex rel. West v. McDonnell,  
Slip Opinion No. 2014-Ohio-1562.] 
Forfeiture proceedings are not a component of a sentencing order—Trial judge 
did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture 
proceedings after notice of appeal from criminal conviction was filed—
Court of appeals’ judgment dismissing petition for writ of prohibition 
affirmed. 
(No. 2013-0714—Submitted November 19, 2013—Decided April 17, 2014.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County, No. 99086,  
2013-Ohio-1044. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Appellant, Todd West, appeals the judgment of the Eighth District 
Court of Appeals dismissing his petition for a writ of prohibition against 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
 
Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court Judge Nancy McDonnell.  For the 
reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. 
Background 
{¶ 2} On March 29, 2011, West was indicted by a Cuyahoga County 
grand jury for running a marijuana-distribution operation with his brother, 
Timothy West,1 out of a building the brothers owned at 2341 Scranton Road, in 
Cleveland.  State v. West, Cuyahoga Cty. C.P. No. CR-548609-A. 
{¶ 3} On September 16, 2011, a jury found West guilty of four felonies, 
with forfeiture specifications.  Judge McDonnell issued a sentencing entry on 
September 26, 2011, and in it, she listed property to be forfeited, including the 
property at 2341 Scranton Road. 
{¶ 4} West appealed the sentencing order to the Eighth District Court of 
Appeals on October 11, 2011.  8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 97398.  West contends 
that the filing of that notice of appeal divested Judge McDonnell of jurisdiction to 
conduct further forfeiture hearings. 
{¶ 5} On October 17, 2011, Nicholas Kulon filed a petition, pursuant to 
the criminal forfeiture proceedings described in R.C. 2981.04, to determine the 
validity of his interest in the Scranton Road property.  The West brothers’ mother, 
Donnalee West, also filed an R.C. 2981.04 petition related to the property.  Judge 
McDonnell held two hearings on the petitions, one on November 23 and another 
on December 28, 2011. 
{¶ 6} Judge McDonnell issued a journal entry on January 13, 2012, 
reiterating West’s sentence and resolving the R.C. 2981.04 petitions.  Judge 
McDonnell dismissed Donnalee West’s petition as untimely.  She further found 
that Kulon was a bona fide purchaser of the property, but that the attempted sale 
of the property violated R.C. 2981.07 and was void.  She therefore ordered the 
                                                 
1 Timothy West is the appellant in a nearly identical case, State ex rel. West v. McDonnell, ___ 
Ohio St.3d ___, 2014-Ohio-1563, ___ N.E.3d ___, also decided today.   
January Term, 2014 
3 
 
transfer of the property to Kulon, and ordered that the proceeds of the sale be 
forfeited to the appropriate trust funds operated by the city of Cleveland and 
Cuyahoga County. 
{¶ 7} West filed a notice of appeal on February 2, 2012.  8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 97899. 
{¶ 8} On October 23, 2012, almost a year after Judge McDonnell entered 
her order on the forfeiture petitions, West commenced an original action in the 
Eighth District Court of Appeals, seeking a writ of prohibition to vacate Judge 
McDonnell’s January 13, 2012 order.  West argued that Judge McDonnell had 
lacked jurisdiction to enter the order for two reasons.  First, he maintained that 
jurisdiction over the matter transferred to the court of appeals when he appealed 
his criminal conviction on October 11, 2011.  And second, he argued that the 
criminal indictment specified only permanent parcel No. 004-10-005 as subject to 
forfeiture, but the Scranton Road property that Judge McDonnell declared 
forfeited also included permanent parcel No. 004-10-006, and so, she (allegedly) 
did not have jurisdiction to declare that portion of the property forfeited. 
{¶ 9} The Eighth District granted Judge McDonnell’s motion to dismiss.  
The appellate court held that R.C. 2981.04 vested Judge McDonnell with 
jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings even after the notice of appeal was 
filed.  In addition, the court held that any error by the court in the sentencing entry 
was correctable on appeal.  And the court held that West’s argument concerning 
the indictment’s alleged failure to include both parcel numbers failed because 
West unsuccessfully raised the very same issue in his direct appeal, and therefore 
the argument was barred by issue preclusion. 
{¶ 10} West timely filed a notice of appeal with this court.  The parties 
have filed briefs, and the matter is ripe for decision. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 11} On appeal to this court, West presents two arguments.  In his first 
proposition of law, he argues that the appellate court erred in dismissing his 
complaint based upon its review of evidence outside the pleadings.  And in his 
second proposition of law, he contends that the appellate court erred as a matter of 
law in not granting the requested writ.  Neither proposition has merit. 
{¶ 12} West claims that the appellate court erred by considering evidence 
outside the record in deciding to dismiss his prohibition complaint.  Specifically, 
he quotes the following paragraph from the court of appeals’ decision. 
 
A review of the record in the underlying case indicates that 
the brothers had “sold” the Scranton Road property to Nicholas 
Kulon in May 2011.  It is apparent that Kulon realized that this sale 
may be problematic and commenced a civil lawsuit, Kulon v. 
Timothy West, Todd West, State of Ohio & Cuyahoga Cty., 
Cuyahoga C.P. No. CV-761802, on August 8, 2011, to resolve the 
matter.  Thus, the state of Ohio in the underlying case on October 
3, 2011, filed a brief in support of forfeiture that asked the trial 
judge to declare that the May 2011 contract was null and void and 
to vest title unencumbered with the city of Cleveland.  On October 
17, 2011, Kulon filed a petition, pursuant to R.C. 2981.04, criminal 
forfeiture proceedings, to determine the validity of his interest in 
the Scranton Road property.  In between these filings, the brothers 
appealed their convictions and sentences; State v. Timothy West, 
8th Dist. No. 97391 and State v. Todd West, 8th Dist. No. 97398. 
On December 28, 2011, Donnalee West, the brothers’ mother, filed 
a petition to determine her interest in the property. 
 
January Term, 2014 
5 
 
8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 99086, 2013-Ohio-1044, ¶ 4. 
{¶ 13} Judge McDonnell argues that the factual averments in the 
paragraph quoted above were all properly considered by the court of appeals 
because all this information was part of the record in West’s criminal/forfeiture 
case, Cuyahoga C.P. No. CR-548609-A. 
{¶ 14} As a general rule, courts cannot rely on evidence or allegations 
outside the complaint to decide a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss.  State ex rel. 
Fuqua v. Alexander, 79 Ohio St.3d 206, 207, 680 N.E.2d 985 (1997).  Judge 
McDonnell correctly notes that courts have recognized narrow exceptions to this 
rule.  State ex rel. Scott v. Cleveland, 112 Ohio St.3d 324, 2006-Ohio-6573, 859 
N.E.2d 923, ¶ 26 (in deciding a motion to dismiss, a court may consider legal 
arguments set forth in a separate pleading); France v. Celebrezze, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 98147, 2012-Ohio-2072, ¶ 6-7 (court may take judicial notice of its 
own docket to dismiss sua sponte a complaint for writ of prohibition). 
{¶ 15} It is unnecessary for the court to decide whether the appellate court 
in this case correctly took judicial notice of evidence and allegations in the 
underlying criminal complaint because those specific facts played no part in the 
court’s decision.  The court dismissed the complaint based on legal 
determinations: that R.C. 2981.04 gave Judge McDonnell jurisdiction to hold a 
forfeiture hearing and that West had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of 
law by way of direct appeal.  West’s merit brief does not explain how specific 
facts outside the record concerning the dispute with Kulon were relevant, much 
less pivotal, to the appellate court’s decision. 
{¶ 16} That said, however, the appellate court did exceed its bounds in 
ruling on the Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion, at least with regard to the issue of the 
Scranton Road parcels.  The appellate court held that West’s claim was barred by 
issue preclusion.  Issue preclusion is a subset of res judicata.  State ex rel. 
Schachter v. Ohio Pub. Emps. Retirement Bd., 121 Ohio St.3d 526, 2009-Ohio-
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
 
1704, 905 N.E.2d 1210, ¶ 27.  It is not proper for a court to grant a motion to 
dismiss based on res judicata, because res judicata is an affirmative defense, 
Shaper v. Tracy, 73 Ohio St.3d 1211, 1212, 654 N.E.2d 1268 (1995); State ex rel. 
Freeman v. Morris, 62 Ohio St.3d 107, 109, 579 N.E.2d 702 (1991), and because 
resolution of a res judicata defense typically requires resort to materials outside 
the pleadings, Folck v. Khanzada, 2d Dist. Clark No. 2012-CA-18, 2012-Ohio-
4971, ¶ 8-9; Commons v. Raaber, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 96867, 2011-Ohio-
6084, ¶ 12; Hillman v. Edwards, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 10AP-950, 2011-Ohio-
2677, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 17} The question, then, is whether the court of appeals properly 
dismissed the complaint for purely legal reasons, which implicates West’s second 
proposition of law. 
{¶ 18} In his second proposition of law, West argues that he is entitled to 
a writ of prohibition because Judge McDonnell lacked jurisdiction to conduct a 
forfeiture hearing after West filed his notice of appeal from the criminal 
conviction. 
{¶ 19} If a court patently and unambiguously lacks jurisdiction, a writ of 
prohibition will issue to prevent any future unlawful exercise of jurisdiction and 
to correct the results of prior jurisdictionally unauthorized actions.  State ex rel. 
Cordray v. Marshall, 123 Ohio St.3d 229, 2009-Ohio-4986, 915 N.E.2d 633, 
¶ 26.  However, if the court does not patently and unambiguously lack 
jurisdiction, then a party who disputes that jurisdiction has an adequate remedy by 
way of appeal, and so a writ of prohibition will not issue.  State ex rel. Bradford v. 
Trumbull Cty. Court, 64 Ohio St.3d 502, 504, 597 N.E.2d 116 (1992); State ex 
rel. Pearson v. Moore, 48 Ohio St.3d 37, 38, 548 N.E.2d 945 (1990). 
{¶ 20} The court of appeals held that Judge McDonnell did not patently 
and unambiguously lack jurisdiction, because R.C. 2981.04 vested her with at 
least apparent jurisdiction to conduct forfeiture proceedings even after the notice 
January Term, 2014 
7 
 
of appeal was filed.  Specifically, R.C. 2981.04(E)(1) allows any person (other 
than the offender) who asserts a legal interest in the forfeited property to petition 
the court for a hearing to adjudicate the validity of that interest after the court has 
entered the forfeiture order.  This is precisely what happened with respect to the 
Scranton Road property. 
{¶ 21} In his current appeal, West does not directly dispute this legal 
conclusion.  Instead, he argues that Judge McDonnell’s actions amounted to 
modifying his sentencing order while the case was on appeal.  West contends that 
the trial court is without jurisdiction to amend a criminal sentence while the case 
is on appeal, citing State ex rel. Special Prosecutors v. Judges, Court of Common 
Pleas, 55 Ohio St.2d 94, 378 N.E.2d 162 (1978). 
{¶ 22} This court’s decision in State v. Harris, 132 Ohio St.3d 318, 2012-
Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509, is dispositive of West’s argument.  In Harris, this 
court held that an order of forfeiture is not a criminal penalty, and thus, the 
forfeiture need not be in the sentencing entry.  Id. at ¶ 27-28.  “[T]he forfeiture of 
items contemplates judicial action and additional considerations that extend 
beyond a defendant’s criminal case.”  Id. at ¶ 33.  The statute anticipates that the 
court may have to conduct additional proceedings regarding forfeiture after the 
conviction is finalized.  R.C. 2981.04(E). 
{¶ 23} Because forfeiture proceedings are not a component of the 
sentencing order itself, the holding in Special Prosecutors does not apply to them.  
For that reason, the court of appeals was correct in holding that Judge McDonnell 
did not patently and unambiguously lack jurisdiction and that any errors in the 
proceedings should be addressed on appeal. 
{¶ 24} That principle extends to West’s argument that Judge McDonnell 
lacked jurisdiction to order the entire Scranton Road property forfeited because 
the indictment failed to list one of the parcel numbers in describing the property 
subject to forfeiture.  Any error in that regard was an error in the exercise of 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
 
jurisdiction, rather than an action undertaken in the absence of subject-matter 
jurisdiction.  See State ex rel. Obojski v. Perciak, 113 Ohio St.3d 486, 2007-Ohio-
2453, 866 N.E.2d 1070, at ¶ 22 (entry that rezoned property in violation of city 
charter requiring voter approval for residential zoning changes was an error in the 
exercise of jurisdiction, not an error establishing lack of subject-matter 
jurisdiction). 
{¶ 25} Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment of the court of 
appeals. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, O’DONNELL, LANZINGER, KENNEDY, 
FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
____________________ 
Todd West, pro se. 
Timothy J. McGinty, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and James 
E. Moss, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 
_________________________