(A) If a person is convicted of or pleads guilty to a felony drug abuse offense, or a juvenile is found by a juvenile court to be a delinquent child for an act that, if committed by an adult, would be a felony drug abuse offense, and derives profits or other proceeds from the offense or act, the court that imposes sentence or an order of disposition upon the offender or delinquent child, in lieu of any fine that the court is otherwise authorized or required to impose, may impose upon the offender or delinquent child a fine of not more than twice the gross profits or other proceeds so derived.
(B) Notwithstanding any contrary provision of section 3719.21 of the Revised Code, all fines imposed pursuant to this section shall be paid by the clerk of the court to the county, municipal corporation, township, park district, as created pursuant to section 511.18 or 1545.01 of the Revised Code, or state law enforcement agencies in this state that were primarily responsible for or involved in making the arrest of, and in prosecuting, the offender. However, no fine so imposed shall be paid to a law enforcement agency unless the agency has adopted a written internal control policy under division (F)(2) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code that addresses the use of the fine moneys that it receives under this division and division (F)(1) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code. The fines imposed and paid pursuant to this division shall be used by the law enforcement agencies to subsidize their efforts pertaining to drug offenses, in accordance with the written internal control policy adopted by the recipient agency under division (F)(2) of section 2925.03 of the Revised Code.
(C) As used in this section:
(1) "Law enforcement agencies" includes, but is not limited to, the state board of pharmacy and the office of a prosecutor.
(2) "Prosecutor" has the same meaning as in section 2935.01 of the Revised Code.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases, 1994–2019 · leading case: State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994).
State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994). · cites it 13ד42(A)(1)(b) R.C. 2925.42 permits forfeiture of certain property in connection with specific felony drug abuse offenses.”
State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St. 3d 25 (1994). · cites it 17ד] Criminal law—Drug offenses—Forfeiture of property relating to felony drug abuse offense—R.C. 2925.42—Prior to entering order of forfeiture, trial court must make an independent determination whether forfeiture of that property is an "excessive fine" prohibited by the Excessive…”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). · cites it 13דThe indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-746. · cites it 8ד{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509. · cites it 4דIn Hill, we held that forfeiture of property pursuant to R.C. 2925.42 was a form of punishment for the specified offense of felony drug abuse.”
State v. Kiser, 2017-Ohio-4222. · cites it 6דKiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
State v. Hoang, 2012-Ohio-3741. · cites it 2דMoreover, he fails to reference the forfeiture statute, R.C. 2925.42, or otherwise cite any law for the proposition that the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof was inapplicable.”
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-2002. · cites it 4דAll additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
State v. Ziepfel, 669 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995). · cites it 2דPursuant to R.C. 2925.42, the defendant was ordered to forfeit his apartment building valued at approximately $110,000.”
State ex rel. Sensible Norwood v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-5919, 69 N.E.3d 696. “, R.C. 2925.42. {¶ 17} (3) Section 513.15(s) prohibits the suspension of a driver’s or commercial driver’s license or permit for any length of time based on the drug-abuse offenses in the proposed ordinance.”
State v. Brown, 668 N.E.2d 514 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1995). “In accordance with R.C. 2925.42, count four also contained a specification subjecting appellant’s property, namely $5,871, to criminal forfeiture.”
State v. Perkins, 2014-Ohio-1863. “Hill was distinguished because the criminal statute involved in Hill (R.C. 2925.42) “required an offender to lose any right to possession of property and to forfeit to the state any interest the defendant may have had in property that was an integral part of the criminal…”
State v. Kiser, 2017-Ohio-4222. “Kiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A)(1): 3 cases
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-746. “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Hoang, 2012-Ohio-3741. “Moreover, he fails to reference the forfeiture statute, R.C. 2925.42, or otherwise cite any law for the proposition that the preponderance of the evidence burden of proof was inapplicable.”
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-2002. “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(A)(1)(a): 4 cases
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-746. “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-2002. “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
State v. Hill, 635 N.E.2d 1248 (Ohio 1994). “42(A)(1)(b) R.C. 2925.42 permits forfeiture of certain property in connection with specific felony drug abuse offenses.”
State v. Hill, 70 Ohio St. 3d 25 (1994). “] Criminal law—Drug offenses—Forfeiture of property relating to felony drug abuse offense—R.C. 2925.42—Prior to entering order of forfeiture, trial court must make an independent determination whether forfeiture of that property is an "excessive fine" prohibited by the Excessive…”
State v. Harris, 2012-Ohio-1908, 972 N.E.2d 509. “In Hill, we held that forfeiture of property pursuant to R.C. 2925.42 was a form of punishment for the specified offense of felony drug abuse.”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Ziepfel, 669 N.E.2d 299 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1995). “Pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, the defendant was ordered to forfeit his apartment building valued at approximately $110,000.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B): 1 case
State v. Kiser, 2017-Ohio-4222. “Kiser argues that it was plain error for the trial court to order the payment because there was no evidence that the task force complied with R.”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(3)(a): 3 cases
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-746. “{¶44} In her twelfth assignment of error, Vu argues that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury that the State had to prove forfeiture was warranted under a preponderance of the evidence standard rather than the criminal standard of beyond a reasonable…”
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
State v. Vu, 2012-Ohio-2002. “All additional seven charges also contained forfeiture specifications under R.C. 2925.42(A)(1). The trial court later granted the State’s request to consolidate Mr.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(B)(5)(a): 1 case
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2925.42(F): 1 case
State v. Woodbridge, 791 N.E.2d 1035 (Ohio Ct. App. 7th Dist. 2003). “The indictment included a number of forfeiture specifications pursuant to R.C. 2925.42, one of which involved a 1993 Yukon truck allegedly belonging to appellant.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.