 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Walker10/21/2005
om the decision ordering that he remove the bears. This appeal was docketed in our court as Greene App. No. 2004-CA-16. Walker also filed a motion for stay of execution in our court, and we then filed a decision and entry on March 2, 2004. In the entry, we noted that Walker had three pending appeals. We observed that Walker appeared to be most concerned about the trial court or the state taking steps to destroy the bears if they could not be transferred by the court-ordered deadline. We denied the motion for stay, but ordered that:
{ } "if Walker fails to timely remove the bears from his property in compliance with the trial court's February 17, 2004 judgment entry, thereby necessitating a public agency to take possession and/or control of the bears, that the bears not be destroyed during the pendency of these appeals except in the event of an emergency necessitating their immediate destruction. Counsel for the parties shall take steps to see that copies of this order are served on the appropriate public agency or agencies that may take possession and/or control of these bears." State v. Walker (Mar. 2, 2004), Greene App. Nos. 2003-CA-93, 2003-CA-94, and 2004-CA-16, slip. op., p. 3.
{ } As ordered, Walker did remove the bears in a timely fashion to the property of another individual (Todd Bell). Subsequently, on March 9, 2004, the bears were apparently seized by Greene County Animal Control. The Court held another "review" hearing on March 11, 2004. The docket entries before us do not indicate that the trial court provided Walker with notice of the hearing. The court also did not give Walker an opportunity to present evidence or witnesses.
{ } The hearing transcript indicates that Walker was questioned about his income, and about what he currently spent to feed the bears (which was about $50 total per month). The trial court then made a lengthy statement, expressing concern over protecting both the public and the animals. Some discussion occurred about the prospect of Walker regaining control over the bears, and the court indicated that Walker would have to obtain a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) permit and the court would have to approve the facility.
{ } On the day of the hearing, the court filed an order using the caption for both of Walker's criminal cases, as well as the caption for a case involving Todd Bell. The court ordered that expenses incurred or to be incurred for the care, feeding, housing, transportation, and medical expenses for the seven bears would be reimbursed by the Court and passed on to Walker and Todd as "restitution due," in such amounts as the court would hereafter order. The court also issued an order for transportation and housing of the bears, but sealed the order.
{ } On April 13, 2004, the court issued an order indicating it would have a review hearing on April 28, 2004. At the review hearing, the court again did not provide Walker with an opportunity to present evidence or witnesses. The transcript of that hearing indicates that a representative of Animal Control stated that Walker had been cooperative with her, and that all the representative wanted was proof of income. Walker was then questioned about his income. Walker indicated that he received rent for a property owned by his mother, and paid the mortgage. Other than that, Walker claimed to have no other source of income. The court observed that in view of Walker's level of cooperation and lack of income, Walker was unlikely to get the bears back. The court stated that $10,827 in expenses had already been incurred, and that Walker should talk to his probation officer about how he was going to pay the bill.
{ } After Walker requested an item
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.
|
|