Court Opinion

ID: 9955928
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-29 18:10:30.95823+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:39.363418
License: Public Domain

[Cite as State v. Hill, 2024-Ohio-1213.]

                    IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO
                            ELEVENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                 TRUMBULL COUNTY

STATE OF OHIO,                                   CASE NO. 2023-T-0072

                    Plaintiff-Appellee,
                                                 Criminal Appeal from the
           - vs -                                Central District Court

ROBERT J. HILL,
                                                 Trial Court No. 2023 CRB 00155
                    Defendant,

(CHERIE EVAN,

                    Appellant).

                                           OPINION

                                     Decided: March 29, 2024
                                  Judgment: Reversed and vacated

Dennis Watkins, Trumbull County Prosecutor, and Deena L. DeVico, Assistant
Prosecutor, Administration Building, Fourth Floor, 160 High Street, N.W., Warren, OH
44481 (For Plaintiff-Appellee).

Jeffrey V. Goodman, Fowler, Goodman & O’Brien, LPA, Inc., 119 West Market Street,
Warren, OH 44481 (For Appellant, Cherie Evan).

MATT LYNCH, J.

           {¶1}     Appellant, Cherie Evan, appeals from the judgment of the Trumbull County

Court, Central District, ordering her to return property to defendant, Robert Hill. For the

following reasons, we reverse and vacate the lower court’s order that Evan return property

to Hill.

           {¶2}     Hill was charged with Menacing by Stalking in the Trumbull County Court,
Central District. Pursuant to the incident report, the offense occurred when Hill, who used

to date Evan, refused to leave her driveway. Hill reported to Bazetta Police Department

officers that Evan had certain property of his that she would not return, which included

tools, a trailer, and snowmobiles. Documentation relating to Hill’s purchase/ownership of

various items was made part of the record.

       {¶3}   During the proceedings, Evan moved for and received a Criminal Protection

Order against Hill. On July 19, 2023, Hill pled guilty to an amended charge of Criminal

Mischief, a misdemeanor of the first degree, in violation of R.C. 2909.07.

       {¶4}   A sentencing hearing was held on September 13, 2023. During the hearing,

the court raised the issue of the disputed property and indicated that it would order Evan

to return certain property to Hill. Counsel for Evan was present and argued that the court

did not have jurisdiction to address matters relating to property in the possession of the

victim. On that date, the court issued two orders. One sentenced Hill for Criminal

Mischief. The second order stated: “alleged victim [Evan] to surrender all property in her

possession clearly titled in Defendant’s name within 48 hours. Failure to comply will result

in contempt proceedings.”

       {¶5}   Evan appeals and raises the following assignments of error:

       {¶6}   “[1.] The trial court committed error by issuing a civil order of replevin

against a non-party in a criminal case without jurisdiction; denying victim/appellant due

process of law, and absent any sworn testimony or evidence.

       {¶7}   “[2.] The trial court committed error by threatening criminal prosecution of

a non-party solely to encourage settlement of civil property issues which were not before

the court.”

                                             2

Case No. 2023-T-0072
       {¶8}   In her first assignment of error, Evan argues that the trial court lacked

jurisdiction to issue a civil order of replevin to a non-party in criminal proceedings and did

so without providing due process as no testimony was taken on the property ownership.

The State concedes that Evan’s arguments have merit, observing that a victim is not a

party to a criminal case and the court lacked jurisdiction over Evan.

       {¶9}   “The victim of an alleged crime is not a party to the criminal proceedings

against the defendant.” State v. Montgomery, 169 Ohio St.3d 84, 2022-Ohio-2211, 202

N.E.3d 616, ¶ 16; Brink v. Giant Eagle, 2017-Ohio-7960, 98 N.E.3d 822, ¶ 50 (11th Dist.)

(“[v]ictims of crimes are not parties to criminal actions: the state and the defendant are”).

       {¶10} It has been consistently held that a trial court does not have jurisdiction over

non-parties in criminal proceedings and cannot issue orders to such individuals. In State

v. Dudas, 11th Dist. Lake No. 2007-L-169, 2008-Ohio-3261, a criminal defendant

convicted of corrupt activity charges filed a motion requesting an order that victims of the

corrupt activity return property he claimed they had stolen. This court held that “the

[victims] were not parties in appellant’s criminal cases,” and the “trial court would have

had no jurisdiction to order them to do anything.”        Id. at ¶ 19.   See also Zipfel v.

Reimonenque, 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-19-1083, 2019-Ohio-5151, ¶ 19 (“[a] criminal court

may not adjudicate property rights against non-parties, and without personal jurisdiction,

any order purporting to do so is a nullity”); State v. White, 2018-Ohio-2573, 115 N.E.3d

878, ¶ 15 (2d Dist.) (“In a criminal proceeding, the trial court does not have authority to

deprive a third party * * * of the possession of property” since such party “cannot be

afforded an opportunity to assert its rights in a criminal proceeding to which it is not a

party” and the proper remedy to address a property dispute is through civil proceedings).

                                              3

Case No. 2023-T-0072
       {¶11} Evan correctly asserts that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to order

her, as a victim and non-party to the proceedings, to return property to Hill. The State

concedes this is the case. We reverse and vacate the court’s order that Evan “surrender

all property in her possession clearly titled in Defendant’s name.”

       {¶12} The first assignment of error is with merit.

       {¶13} In her second assignment of error, Evan argues it was improper to use the

threat of criminal prosecution to coerce her to concede civil property claims. As the

resolution of the first assignment of error is dispositive in this matter, we find this

assignment to be moot.

       {¶14} The second assignment of error is moot.

       {¶15} For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court,

Central District, ordering Evan to return property to Hill, is reversed and vacated. Costs

to be taxed against appellee.

EUGENE A. LUCCI, P.J.,

ROBERT J. PATTON, J.,

concur.

                                             4

Case No. 2023-T-0072