Skip to main content

IN RE: 1995 MERCEDES C280 (2006)

Court of Appeals of Ohio,First District, Hamilton County.

IN RE: 1995 MERCEDES C280, VIN WDBHA28E7SF216650, Seized From Oludayo Ashipa.

No. C-050433.

Decided: March 31, 2006

Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Thomas J. Boychan Jr., Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee, state of Ohio. Oludayo Ashipa, pro se.

{¶ 1} In this vehicle-forfeiture case, the defendant, Oludayo Ashipa, appeals from the trial court's order forfeiting a Mercedes to the state.

{¶ 2} In an obviously cut-and-paste brief, Ashipa alleges that the trial court erred by (1) not giving him due process of law, (2) not giving him adequate notice, (3) not having the proceedings within the statutory time limit, (4) allowing forfeiture when the state had not filed a timely petition, (5) somehow violating the Fifth Amendment, (6) not giving him due process by not allowing him to be present at each stage of the proceedings, and (7) forfeiting the vehicle without jurisdiction because it wasn't used in the commission of a felony.

 {¶ 3} The state has meticulously answered each argument (okay-it lumped some together).   Ashipa was convicted of theft and identity theft.   He drained a person's bank account by using ATM and credit cards to purchase money orders-driving the Mercedes between banks and other places where he committed the crimes.   Any time issues were waived.   The Fifth Amendment wasn't raised and doesn't apply.

{¶ 4} But none of these issues matter.   Ashipa lacks a scintilla of standing to challenge the forfeiture.   Ashipa-who indeed was transported back to the hearing from the penitentiary-testified that the vehicle belonged to one Kimberly Simmons, although the title was in one Moriam Bello's name.   Ashipa repeatedly denied any ownership interest in the Mercedes.   Neither Simmons nor Bello (who, as the title owner, was notified) appeared at the hearing, probably wisely preferring to keep a low profile.

{¶ 5} Since Ashipa doesn't claim any interest in the Mercedes, it is beyond cavil (or citation) that he cannot appeal what became of it.   Seeing nothing to reverse, we affirm.

Judgment affirmed.


HILDEBRANDT, P.J., and GORMAN, J., concur.

Was this helpful?

Thank you. Your response has been sent.

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go to Learn About the Law
IN RE: 1995 MERCEDES C280 (2006)

Docket No: No. C-050433.

Decided: March 31, 2006

Court: Court of Appeals of Ohio,First District, Hamilton County.

Get a profile on the #1 online legal directory

Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.

Sign up

Learn About the Law

Get help with your legal needs

FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.

Learn more about the law
Copied to clipboard