 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walker10/21/2005
ctions, the court ordered Walker to surrender the German Shepherd as well as a Great Dane to Animal Control. Walker also received a thirty day jail sentence, which was suspended on condition that Walker cooperate with Animal Control and that he have no further violations for five years. The judge additionally ordered that Walker could have no other animals on his property for five years. This order was stayed so long as Walker had no further lack of cooperation for five years.
{ } Because Walker questioned whether the court had authority to order removal of the dogs, the court allowed Walker to submit a memorandum on this point. After Walker filed a memorandum, the court issued another judgment entry on October 23, 2003, finding that Walker lacked standing to object to the order that the dogs be turned over to Greene County. The court reasoned that Walker had absolved himself of responsibility for the dogs, which did not belong to him. The court also addressed Walker's objection to the order limiting him from having other animals on the property. In this regard, the court noted that the order had been suspended pending Walker's cooperation. The court indicated it could not anticipate the "many ways" in which Walker could fail to cooperate.
{ } In the entry, the court commented on the fact that Walker was currently on probation, and that further orders might be issued to address what kept getting Walker in trouble, i.e., his inability to confine the number of animals he then had. Although the record is devoid of any prior reference to bears, the court mentioned in this hearing that it had particular concern with three bears who were then on Walker's premises. The Court observed that the bears could potentially endanger people if they were not properly confined.
{ } Walker filed a notice of appeal from this entry, which was docketed in our court as Greene App. No. 2003-CA-93. Walker also filed a notice of appeal from his conviction and sentence in another case in Xenia Municipal Court. In that case, Walker had been convicted of one count of failure to properly confine a vicious dog, and two counts of failure to confine a dog. The second appeal was docketed in our court as Greene App. No. 2003-CA-94.
{ } While the two cases were pending on appeal, the trial court filed a judgment entry in the present case, indicating that the matter was before the court for "review." The record does not indicate that the court held any type of evidentiary hearing before issuing the judgment entry, nor does the record reveal that any type of prior notice was given to Walker. The judgment entry was filed on February 17, 2004. In the entry, the court noted that an incident had occurred on February 16, 2004, in the early morning hours, in which three bears were loose on the roadway and had to be corralled by law enforcement officers and others. Because the court was concerned about lack of an alarm system and backup generator for any electrical fencing, as well as Walker's ability to adequately afford to secure the animals, the court ordered Walker to remove the bears from his property within fourteen days. There is no evidentiary material in the record supporting these findings, nor was Walker ever charged with an offense relating to the bears.
{ } On February 26, 2004, Walker filed a motion for stay of judgment, contending that a question existed about how the bears' confinement was breached. Walker also argued that his due process rights were violated because the court had issued the order without giving him notice or an opportunity to be heard. The court denied the motion for stay on February 27, 2004.
{ } On February 26, 2004, Walker filed a notice of appeal fr
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|