State v. Lenard

2025 Ohio 750

• Court: Ohio Court of Appeals
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Docket: 114263
• Status: Published

Opinion

[Cite as State v. Lenard, 2025-Ohio-750.]

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

STATE OF OHIO, :

Plaintiff-Appellee, : No. 114263 v. :

RICHARD LENARD, :

Defendant-Appellant. :

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: March 6, 2025

Criminal Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR-15-597800-A

Appearances:

Michael C. O’Malley, Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney, and Daniel T. Van, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee.

Richard Lenard, pro se.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, J.:

Defendant-appellant, Richard Lenard, appeals the trial court’s

judgment entry denying his motion for return of property. For the reasons that

follow, this court affirms. In 2016, a jury found Lenard guilty of grand theft and tampering with

records, as charged in the indictment. The court imposed a 16-month prison

sentence. Lenard appealed his convictions, raising two assignments of error: (1)

whether the trial court erred in allowing the State to amend the indictment during

trial, and (2) sufficiency of the evidence. See State v. Lenard, 2017-Ohio-4074 (8th

Dist.). This court affirmed his convictions, finding no error by the trial court in

permitting the amendment and that the State presented sufficient evidence

supporting his convictions. Id.

In 2017, Lenard moved to reopen his appeal, contending that

appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance in his direct appeal by failing to

challenge the trial court’s alleged imposition of court costs outside of Lenard’s

presence during sentencing. See State v. Lenard, 2017-Ohio-8570 (8th Dist.). This

court denied his application, finding that the court assessed costs during the

sentencing hearing. Id. at ¶ 5-6.

In February 2020, Lenard filed a motion for return of property not

subject to foreclosure and requested a hearing. He stated that during his arrest in

July 2015, detectives unlawfully seized $1,005 from his five checking accounts.

Lenard alleged that after he made bail in 2015, he attempted to gain access to his

bank accounts, but learned that they were “frozen and/or closed” by detectives.

Although Lenard referenced “exhibits,” his motion contained no attachments. In

his motion, he contended that absent a forfeiture specification in the indictment, the

retention of the unlawfully seized money violated his constitutional rights. In July 2024, the trial court denied Lenard’s motion, finding that

because Lenard did not raise any claim in his direct appeal regarding the unlawfully

seized property, his argument was barred by res judicata.

Lenard now appeals, raising as his sole assignment of error that the

trial court committed prejudicial error when it denied his motion for return of

property without complying with R.C. 2981.04. Specifically, he contends that the

State did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements of R.C. 2981.01

that authorized the trial court and the State to seize and retain his property.

At the outset, the record before this court is entirely devoid of any

information or evidence that detectives seized and retained monetary property from

Lenard at the time of his arrest. Lenard stated in his motion that while he was on

bond in 2015 during the pendency of the case, he learned that detectives froze or

closed his accounts. If he believed that the State unlawfully retained property during

his arrest without seeking forfeiture, it was his responsibility to raise this issue with

the trial court and seek return of his property during the pendency of the case. See

R.C. 2981.03(A)(4) (setting forth the procedures for a person to seek relief from

unlawfully seized property). He failed to do so.

Any unlawful seizure of property should have been raised during the

trial proceedings to preserve the issue on appeal. Lenard cannot resurrect this issue

in his criminal case almost ten years later. “Res judicata bars the assertion of claims

against a valid, final judgment of conviction that have been raised or could have been

raised on appeal.” State v. Ketterer, 2010-Ohio-3831, ¶ 59; State v. Evearitt, 2014- Ohio-1995 (6th Dist.) (res judicata applies when the issue of forfeiture of money

could have been raised on direct appeal). Accordingly, the trial court did not commit

prejudicial error in denying his motion for return of property. The assignment of

error is overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellant costs herein taxed.

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal.

It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the

common pleas court to carry this judgment into execution.

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27

of the Rules of Appellate Procedure.

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, JUDGE

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, A.J., and LISA B. FORBES, J., CONCUR