[Cite as State v. Moss, 2014-Ohio-5411.]

COURT OF APPEALS 

FAIRFIELD COUNTY, OHIO 

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

STATE OF OHIO 

 Plaintiff-Appellee 

-vsTIMOTHY A. MOSS 

 Defendant-Appellant 

JUDGES: 

Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. 

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. 

Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J. 

Case No. 14-CA-3 

O P I N I O N 

CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Fairfield County Common 

Pleas Court, Case No. 13 CR 301 

JUDGMENT: Affirmed 

DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: December 4, 2014 

APPEARANCES: 

For Plaintiff-Appellee For Defendant-Appellant 

GREGG MARX DAVID A. SAMS 

Prosecuting Attorney Box 40 

Fairfield County, Ohio W. Jefferson, Ohio 43162 

239 W. Main Street, Ste. 101 

Lancaster, Ohio 43130 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-3 2

Hoffman, P.J. 

{¶1} Defendant-appellant Timothy A. Moss appeals the judgment of forfeiture 

of cash entered by the Fairfield County Common Pleas Court. Plaintiff-appellee is the 

state of Ohio. 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE1

{¶2} On September 13, 2013, Appellant entered a plea of guilty to trafficking in 

heroin, in violation of R.C. 2925.03(A)(2) and (C)(6)(d), and having weapons under 

disability, in violation of R.C. 2925.03. The trafficking violation contained a forfeiture 

specification pursuant to R.C. 2941.1417 and a specification for proximity to a school. 

Specifically, the state sought forfeiture of $43,100 in cash found pursuant to a search of 

Appellant's residence. 

{¶3} Upon searching Appellant's residence, the officers found scales, plastic 

baggies, knives, a stun gun, a calculator, and a notebook with Appellant’s name on the 

front. The notebook contained names with differing dates and amounts. In the basement 

of Appellant’s home, officers found two shotguns, two rifles, and two handguns. The 

officers also found large amounts of marijuana, prescription pills, needles, over eight 

grams of heroin, and $43,100 in currency. The currency included $120 in marked 

money used by the Major Crimes Unit to purchase heroin in the controlled buy which 

formed the basis for the trafficking charge. The buy money was placed in a recess over 

the basement doorway. The remainder of the money was divided into envelopes 

throughout the basement and hidden in the insulation. The basement was padlocked 

with a combination only known to Appellant. Firearms and drugs were found in close 

 

1

 A rendition of the underlying facts is unnecessary for our resolution of the appeal. 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-3 3

proximity to the money. A coffee can contained $20,000 in cash with a large amount of 

heroin. In addition, a large stack of cash was found in the joists of the house with 

marijuana wrapped inside. The officers testified the area appeared to be a workstation 

for Appellant. 

{¶4} The trial court accepted Appellant’s plea of guilty to the charges, and 

ordered forfeiture of all $43,100 in currency. 

{¶5} Appellant appeals, assigning as error: 

{¶6} "I. THE FORFEITURE OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT'S PROPERTY 

WAS CONTRARY TO OHIO LAW AND THE STATE AND FEDERAL 

CONSTITUTIONS." 

{¶7} The issue presented is whether forfeiture is limited to the proceeds 

derived from the indicted criminal offense or can include proceeds derived from any 

criminal offense, including one(s) for which a defendant has not been convicted. 

{¶8} R.C. 2981.02 governs forfeiture proceedings, 

 (A) The following property is subject to forfeiture to the state or a 

political subdivision under either the criminal or delinquency process in 

section 2981.04 of the Revised Code or the civil process in section 

2981.05 of the Revised Code: 

 (1) Contraband involved in an offense; 

 (2) Proceeds derived from or acquired through the commission of 

an offense; (Emphasis added.) 

{¶9} Ohio courts have recognized there is nothing inherently illegal about 

possessing cash. State v. Golston, 66 Ohio App.3d 423, 431–432, 584 N.E.2d 1336 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-3 4

(1990), citing Chagrin Falls v. Loveman, 34 Ohio App.3d 212, 217, 517 N.E.2d 1005 

(1986). To prove cash is subject to forfeiture, the State must demonstrate it is more 

probable than not, from all the circumstances, the cash was used in the commission of 

a criminal offense or constituted proceeds from the commission of "an" offense. The 

government is required to prove the money constitutes proceeds of “an offense,” not 

necessarily proceeds of the offense at issue in the criminal case. Dayton Police Dept. 

v. Thompson, 2nd Dist No. 24790, 2012-Ohio- 2660. “An offense” is any act that “could 

be charged.” Id. A conviction is not required. 

{¶10} Here, Appellant was indicted on charges of engaging in a pattern of 

corrupt activity, trafficking in heroin, possession of heroin, and having weapons under 

disability. The officers testified herein they found scales, plastic baggies, knives, a stun 

gun, a calculator and a notebook with Appellant’s name on the front near Appellant’s 

bedroom during their search. The notebook contained names followed by dates and 

amounts. In the basement of Appellant’s home, the officers found two shotguns, two 

rifles, two handguns, large amounts of marijuana, including some wrapped in cash, 

prescription pills, needles, heroin, and $43,100 in currency. The currency was stored 

with the drugs or located nearby. 

{¶11} Based upon the foregoing, the trial court did not err in finding it was more 

probable than not, from all the circumstances, Appellant used the cash or the cash 

constituted proceeds from the commission of a criminal offense; therefore, subject to 

forfeiture. 

{¶12} Appellant's assignment of error is overruled 
Fairfield County, Case No. 14-CA-3 5

{¶13} The judgment of the Fairfield County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. 

By: Hoffman, P.J. 

Gwin, J. and 

Farmer, J. concur