In re Chambers-Wine
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Chambers-Wine, 2006-Ohio-6834.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: VIRGINIA CHAMBERS-WINE : Case No. V2005-80754 VIRGINIA CHAMBERS-WINE : ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL Applicant : : : : : {¶1} : On December 22, 2005, the applicant filed a supplemental compensation application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to a series of alleged criminal incidents that occurred between 1984-2004. On February 2, 2006, the Attorney General issued a Finding of Fact and Decision that stated that no award could be made since the matter was currently on appeal before the panel of commissioners. On March 23, 2006, the applicant filed a request for reconsideration.1 On May 17, 2006, the Attorney General issued a Final Decision denying the claim pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata. On June 20, 2006, the applicant filed a notice of appeal from the Attorney General s May 17, 2006 Final Decision. On August 17, 2006, the Attorney General filed a brief that recommended the Final Decision be affirmed pursuant to the doctrine of res judicata or pursuant to R.C. 2743.52(A) since the applicant failed to 1 On April 4, 2006, the panel of commissioners issued a decision and order affirming the Attorney General s April 26, 2005 Final Decision denying the applicant s claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(A), since there was no evidence that the alleged incidents were ever reported to law enforcement officials. Case No. V2005-80754 -1- ORDER prove that she was a victim of criminally injurious conduct. Hence, this matter came to be heard before this panel of three commissioners on September 20, 2006 at 10:45 A.M. {¶2} Neither the applicant nor anyone on her behalf appeared at the hearing. An Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and reiterated her position for denying the claim. After a brief discussion of the matter, the panel chairman concluded the hearing. {¶3} From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to all the information presented at the hearing, we find the May 17, 2006 decision of the Attorney General shall be affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT 1) The May 17, 2006 decision of the Attorney General is AFFIRMED; 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered in favor of the state of Ohio; Case No. V2005-80754 -1- ORDER 3) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. _______________________________________ GREGORY P. BARWELL Commissioner _______________________________________ JAMES H. HEWITT III Commissioner _______________________________________ KARL C. KERSCHNER Commissioner ID #\6-dld-tad-092606 A copy of the foregoing was personally served upon the Attorney General and sent by regular mail to Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney and to: Filed 11-9-2006 Jr. Vol. 2262, Pgs. 100-102 Tp S.C. Reporter 12-22-2006 Case No. V2005-80754 -1- ORDER
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
