In re Hampton
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
[Cite as In re Hampton, 2007-Ohio-4511.] IN THE COURT OF CLAIMS OF OHIO VICTIMS OF CRIME DIVISION www.cco.state.oh.us IN RE: ALVIN E. HAMPTON : Case No. V2007-90170 JESSIE M. HAMPTON ALEX J. SMITH SANDRA JOHNSON : Commissioners: Gregory P. Barwell, Presiding Tim McCormack Clarence E. Mingo II Applicants : : ORDER OF A THREECOMMISSIONER PANEL : : : : : {¶1} : The applicants filed a reparations application seeking reimbursement of expenses incurred with respect to the August 22, 2006 homicide of Alvin Hampton. On January 22, 2007, the Attorney General denied the claim pursuant to R.C. 2743.60(E)(1)(e) because the victim s blood tested positive for the presence of cocaine on the coroner s toxicology report. On February 2, 2007, the applicants filed a request for reconsideration. On February 22, 2007, the Attorney General denied the claim once again. On March 2, 2007, Jessie Hampton filed a notice of appeal to the Attorney General s February 22, 2007 Final Decision. At 10:40 A.M. on May 23, 2007, this matter was heard before this panel of three commissioners. {¶2} Neither the applicants nor anyone on their behalf appeared at the hearing. An Assistant Attorney General attended the hearing and presented brief comments for Case No. V2007-90170 -1- ORDER the panel s consideration. The Assistant Attorney General summarized the case and reiterated his position for denying the claim. {¶3} Revised Code 2743.60(E)(1)(e) states: Except as otherwise provided in division (E)(2) of this section, the attorney general, a panel of commissioners, or a judge of the court of claims shall not make an award to a claimant if any of the following applies: (e) It is proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the victim at the time of the criminally injurious conduct that gave rise to the claim engaged in conduct that was a felony violation of section 2925.11 of the Revised Code or engaged in any substantially similar conduct that would constitute a felony under the laws of this state, another state, or the United States. {¶4} From review of the file and with full and careful consideration given to all the information presented at the hearing, we find that the February 22, 2007 decision of the Attorney General shall be affirmed. {¶5} IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT {¶6} 1) The February 22, 2007 decision of the Attorney General is {¶7} 2) This claim is DENIED and judgment is rendered for the state of Ohio; {¶8} 3) Costs are assumed by the court of claims victims of crime fund. AFFIRMED; _______________________________________ GREGORY P. BARWELL [Cite as In re Hampton, 2007-Ohio-4511.] Presiding Commissioner _______________________________________ TIM MC CORMACK Commissioner _______________________________________ CLARENCE E. MINGO II Commissioner ID #I:\Victim Decisions to SC Reporter\Panel July 2007\V2007-90170.wpd\1-dld-tad-053007 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 7-5-2007 Jr. Vol. 2265, Pgs. 144-146 To S.C. Reporter 8-31-2007 Case No. V2007-90170 -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.
