Search Case Law





Search Results

156,662 results found in 3.35 seconds

United States v. Darui

Published, 4/25/2008
. . . " no general authority for the court to order criminal forfeiture for mail fraud. 2 In Day, the court held that § 2461(c) does not enable the Court to order criminal forfeiture for mail fraud of property that would be subject to civil forfeiture since there already exists a specific statutory provision authorizing criminal forfeiture of mail and wire fraud proceeds. See Day, 416 F.Supp.2d at 86. Defendant" . . .
View case


2009 GMC Pickup, VIN No.1GTJK83679F188085 v. State

Published, 6/18/2015
. . . " On Appeal from the 35th District Court Brown County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV1202051 MEMORANDUM OPINION These appeals arise from two civil forfeiture proceedings brought by the State against items of personal property belonging to Marc Shawn Walden. The trial court found that the items were contraband under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and ordered that they be forfeited. See" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corp., Agent Michael W. Cox

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . " that it was proper to assess civil appellate filing fees in criminal bond forfeiture appeals. I write separately to note the arguments of the Amicus Curiae, the Professional Bondsmen of Texas (\"PBT\"). PBT asserts that the use of the word \"rules\" in Article 22.10 (1) is significant. As PBT points out, rules are not statutes. The distinction between rules and statutes is that civil rules (2) are promulgated" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corp., Agent Michael W. Cox

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . " that it was proper to assess civil appellate filing fees in criminal bond forfeiture appeals. I write separately to note the arguments of the Amicus Curiae, the Professional Bondsmen of Texas (“PBT”). PBT asserts that the use of the word “rules” in Article 22.10 1 is 1 Code of Criminal Procedure Article 22.10 states: “When a forfeiture has been declared upon a bond, the court or clerk shall docket the case upon" . . .
View case


Rangolan v. Department of Homeland Security

Published, 3/9/2010
. . . "FILED MAR 9 2010 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Clerk, U.S. District and FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy Courts Paul Rangolan, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 10 0391 Dep't of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Paul Rangolan has filed a pro se complaint and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The application" . . .
View case


United States v. Day

Published, 2/22/2006
. . . " As counsel for Mr. Day puts it, there are two issues here: The first is whether a money judgment—typically, a civil remedy—is available under authority of the forfeiture statutes following criminal convictions in mail and wire fraud or embezzlement cases, and the second is whether the forfeiture statutes under which the United States is proceeding are applicable to the convictions in this case. Defendant's" . . .
View case


Clymore v. United States

Published, 8/24/2000
. . . " that the inadequately noticed forfeiture is void —— that is, the forfeiture should be vacated and the statute of limitations should be allowed to run against the government, subject to any affirmative defenses available to the government against the running of the statute of limitations (e.g., laches, equitable tolling).33 The Ninth Circuit reasoned that it is “particularly weary of civil forfeiture statutes" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corp., Agent Michael W. Cox

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . " judgment in a criminal bail bond forfeiture case, the court of appeals may assess civil appellate filing fees. I agree with the court of appeals in this case that the answer to that question is “yes.” Article 22.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “When a forfeiture has been declared upon a bond, the court or clerk shall docket the case upon the scire fascias or upon the civil docket" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corp., Agent Michael W. Cox

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . " judgment in a criminal bail bond forfeiture case, the court of appeals may assess civil appellate filing fees. I agree with the court of appeals in this case that the answer to that question is \"yes.\" \tArticle 22.10 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure provides: \t\"When a forfeiture has been declared upon a bond, the court or clerk shall docket the case upon the scire fascias or upon the civil docket" . . .
View case


SAFETY NAT. CAS. CORP. v. State

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . " in which KELLER, P.J., MEYERS, PRICE, JOHNSON, HERVEY, and COCHRAN, J.J., joined. The First Court of Appeals held that it is proper to require appellant to pay civil filing fees in bond forfeiture cases on appeal. 1 Based on a historical evaluation of Article 44.44, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and our judiciary's history, we hold that civil filing fee statutes do not apply in such cases. Because" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corp., Agent Michael W. Cox

Published, 3/3/2010
. . . ". Keller, P.J., filed a concurring opinion in which Johnson, J., joined. Meyers, J., filed a concurring opinion. Holcomb, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which Womack, J., joined. O P I N I O N \tThe First Court of Appeals held that it is proper to require appellant to pay civil filing fees in bond forfeiture cases on appeal. (1) Based on a historical evaluation of Article 44.44, Texas Code of Criminal" . . .
View case


Fant v. State

Published, 10/16/1996
. . . " only ground for review before this Court, the State argues the Fourteenth Court of Appeals \"erred in holding that, in Texas, a narcotics defendant's right against double jeopardy is necessarily violated when he is prosecuted for a criminal narcotics offense after his property has been subjected to an in rem forfeiture in a separate, but related, civil forfeiture proceeding.\" We will reverse. I" . . .
View case


Patti Diann Perkins, $9,935.00 in U.S. Currency v. State

Published, 12/8/2009
. . . " by Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are civil in nature. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.05(a) (Vernon 2 2006); see Prear v. State, 933 S.W.2d 643 , 645 (Tex.App.–San Antonio, 1996, no pet.) (forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 59 are civil in rem proceedings). A final judgment in a civil case is one that disposes of all parties and all issues in a lawsuit. Lehman v. Har Con Corp., 39" . . .
View case


Patti Diann Perkins, $9,935.00 in U.S. Currency v. State

Published, 12/8/2009
. . . " are governed by Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they are civil in nature.  Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.05(a) (Vernon 2006); see Prear v. State, 933 S.W.2d 643, 645 (Tex.App.–San Antonio, 1996, no pet.) (forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 59 are civil in rem proceedings).  A final judgment in a civil case is one that disposes of all parties and all issues in a lawsuit.   Lehman v. Har" . . .
View case


$1,608.00 in U.S. Currency and 2008 Mazda, VIN 1YVHP80C385M37457 v. State

Published, 3/31/2015
. . . " until the final disposition of his related criminal case. We conclude that Daugherty was not entitled to court appointed counsel. We further find that the trial court properly exercised its discretion in denying Daugherty’s last minute motion for continuance. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. I. There is No Right to Court Appointed Counsel in a Statutory Civil Forfeiture Proceeding" . . .
View case


United States v. $10,409.00 in US Currency

Published, 11/10/2008
. . . "585 F. Supp. 2d 10 (2008) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. $10,409.00 IN U.S. CURRENCY, Defendant. Civil Action No. 08 0220 (RMU). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 10, 2008. *11 Barry Wiegand, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING THE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT OF FORFEITURE RICARDO" . . .
View case


Weldon v. State

Published, 12/12/1997
. . . "718 So. 2d 52 (1997) Jeffery Randall WELDON v. STATE. 2961167. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. December 12, 1997. Rehearing Denied January 9, 1998. John C. Robbins of Polson & Robbins, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant. Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Francis R. Clement, asst. atty. gen., for appellee. MONROE, Judge. This is a civil forfeiture case. On October 1, 1996, Jeffery Weldon was stopped" . . .
View case


United States v. 12,350.00 in United States Currency

Published, 4/5/2012
. . . "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. Civil Action 11 117 (BJR) $12,350.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, in cash seized on December 30, 2010, etc., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This in rem civil forfeiture action comes before the Court upon plaintiff United States’ Motion for Entry of a Default Judgment and Final Order of Forfeiture Dkt" . . .
View case


Ranger Ins. Co. v. State

Published, 6/10/2010
. . . ", and MYERS. OPINION Opinion By Justice MURPHY. Ranger Insurance Company, a surety, challenges the assessment of civil trial and appellate filing fees in this bond forfeiture case, arguing the fees are improper because the nature of the proceeding is criminal. In two issues, Ranger complains about assessment of the fees as well as a claimed overcharge for the sheriff's fee. We affirm. BACKGROUND The facts" . . .
View case


State v. DeSantio

Published, 6/28/1995
. . . " (the \"Property\") in a civil forfeiture suit styled \"The State of Texas v. Real Property Located at 5813 E. Paisano, El Paso, Texas 79925 with all Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon,\" Cause No. 93 8365. Specifically, the state alleged that Tony DeSantio a/k/a Robert McIntosh (\"appellee\") committed the offense of engaging in organized criminal activity/aggravated promotion of prostitution using the Property" . . .
View case


United States v. Arreola-Ramos

Published, 7/20/1995
. . . ", for appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Before SMITH, WIENER and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges: WIENER, Circuit Judge: 1 Defendant Appellant Omar Arreola Ramos (Arreola) faces a criminal drug trial. With this interlocutory appeal, he seeks to bar that trial on double jeopardy grounds. Although a non party to a civil forfeiture proceeding, Arreola here asserts" . . .
View case


Ex Parte: T. J. Johnson

Published, 1/23/1997
. . . " in this action. It was stipulated below that the possession of cocaine for which appellant now stands indicted was the offense underlying the forfeiture proceeding. \tIn United States v. Ursery , U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996), the United States Supreme Court held that civil forfeitures generally do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 2149" . . .
View case


United States v. One Assortment of 89 Firearms

Published, 2/22/1984
. . . " of the seized firearms. 3 On the basis of his earlier acquittal, Mulcahey asserted the defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel. The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina struck Mulcahey's defenses, reasoning that an in rem forfeiture proceeding under 18 U.S. C . § 924(d) is remedial in nature and is therefore properly characterized as *357 a civil proceeding. 463 F. Supp" . . .
View case


Romero v. State

Published, 9/19/1996
. . . " for a unanimous Court. Rosalinda Romero seeks to set aside a settlement reached in a civil forfeiture action. Romero agreed to divide the proceeds from the sale of her house and lot with the State of Texas. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's refusal to set aside the agreement. 893 S.W.2d 550. We affirm the judgment of the court of appeals. In October 1990, undercover police officers arrested Romero" . . .
View case


Michael Don Watkins and $1937.00 v. State

Published, 7/30/2008
. . . " in the trial.  Cf. In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d 423 , 426 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, no pet.) (“if a court determines that a pro se inmate in a civil action is not entitled to leave prison to appear personally in court, the inmate should be allowed to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone, or other means”).  There thus was no due process violation.  See $429.30 v. State, 896 S.W.2d 363 , 366 (Tex. App" . . .
View case


Kelley v. State

Published, 5/15/1998
. . . "766 So. 2d 836 (1998) Kevin Glenn KELLEY v. STATE of Alabama. 2970009. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. May 15, 1998. Rehearing Denied June 19, 1998. James M. Sizemore, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant. Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Frances R. Clement, asst. atty. gen., for appellee. WRIGHT, Retired Appellate Judge. AFFIRMED. NO OPINION. See Rule 53(a)(1) and (a)(2)(F), Alabama Rules of Appellate" . . .
View case


in Re David Earl Stanley

Published, 7/2/2015
. . . " the Judge of the 258th District Court of Polk County, Texas, to make a ruling on pro se motions that Stanley filed in a civil case while he is represented by counsel. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. Stanley states that counsel was appointed to represent him on criminal charges that are no longer pending. Stanley also states that he was never notified that the attorney had been appointed" . . .
View case


McKinney v. US DEP'T OF JUSTICE DEA

Published, 9/22/2008
. . . "(2008) Duane McKINNEY, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEP'T OF JUSTICE DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. Civil Action No. 07 1480 (RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. September 22, 2008. MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, District Judge. Plaintiff Duane McKinney, acting pro se, filed a complaint in this action seeking the return of seized property, alleging that the seizure" . . .
View case


Ex Parte: Steve Tomlinson

Published, 10/26/1994
. . . " for possession of marihuana. He contends that his criminal prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy protection of the United States and Texas Constitutions because he has already suffered a punitive civil forfeiture for the same offense. The district court denied the habeas relief. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND \tOn February 4, 1993, pursuant to a warrant, San Angelo police officers" . . .
View case


Tamishea Lanette Williams

Published, 2/7/2006
. . . " obtained a judicial determination that appellant was the owner of the money; therefore, the State cannot prosecute appellant for attempting to steal the money during the murder of while killing the complainant.   The trial court denied appellant = s application and filed findings of fact and conclusions of law.   The court determined the parties in the civil forfeiture action were the same as the parties" . . .
View case


Ex Parte: Augustine Ariza

Published, 1/24/1996
. . . ",\" does not control when jeopardy attaches. In Serfass, jeopardy did not attach because the accused was never subjected to the risk of conviction. By contrast, the trial court that conducted the civil forfeiture proceeding had jurisdiction to and did forfeit the property of the accused. Ariza's right to assert the forfeiture as a bar to further punishment \"attached\" when the forfeiture order was made" . . .
View case


Ex Parte Tomlinson

Published, 10/26/1994
. . . " writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is currently under *545 indictment for possession of marihuana. He contends that his criminal prosecution is barred by the double jeopardy protection of the United States and Texas Constitutions because he has already suffered a punitive civil forfeiture for the same offense. The district court denied the habeas relief. We will affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL" . . .
View case


United States v. $2,550.00 in United States Currency

Published, 5/12/2011
. . . "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10 2078 (PLF) ) $2,550.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, ) seized on July 14, 2010, in Washington, D.C., ) from Damien Irby near 2921 Nelson Place, S.E., ) as police were about to serve a drug related ) search warrant" . . .
View case


Andy Dwayne Posey v. State

Published, 11/5/2001
. . . " of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but intentionally withheld service of citation for approximately four months. Id. at 443 44. Relying on article 59.05(b) that forfeiture proceedings shall proceed \"in the same manner as in other civil cases,\" we applied the established rule that a party must both file suit within the applicable limitations period and exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining service" . . .
View case


United States v. Gary R. Morgan

Published, 5/28/1996
. . . " to dismiss. Morgan filed this interlocutory appeal. We affirm. Discussion 4 Morgan claims that in light of the administrative forfeiture of his truck, a criminal conviction would constitute an impermissible second punishment for the same offense. He asserts recent decisions by the Supreme Court, holding that civil penalties can constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy, establish" . . .
View case


United States v. $9,928.00 in United States Currency

Published, 3/27/2012
. . . "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 10 1728 (PLF) ) $9,928.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY, ) seized on March 26, 2010, from inside a trash ) can in Cordell Evans’ bedroom at ) 525 Somerset Place, N.W., Washington, D.C., ) ) Defendant" . . .
View case


Blessing v. State

Published, 8/1/1996
. . . " punishments for the same offense. Phillips, 787 S.W.2d at 393 n. 2. This case is controlled by the recent United States Supreme Court opinion in United States v. Ursery, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S. Ct. 2135 , 135 L. Ed. 2d 549 (1996), which held that civil in rem forfeitures pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981 (a)(1)(A) and 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(7) are not \"punishment\" for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See also" . . .
View case


United States v. Ronald Dale Dunn

Published, 1/28/1986
. . . ") is essentially a civil proceeding. United States v. Roher, 706 F.2d 725 , 726 27 (5th Cir.1983). Dunn does not complain on this appeal that his appearance bond was improperly revoked which thereby terminated his physical release on bail pending appeal. 11 Instead, Dunn is challenging the district court's subsequent decision which caused a forfeiture of his property a $50,000 cash bond. 12 It was not error" . . .
View case


Dees v. State

Published, 9/29/1993
. . . ", and the portion of subsection (d) utilizing the provisions of Article 22.16(c), V.A.C.C.P. 3 Dees, 822 S.W.2d at 706. The Court of Appeals also held civil court costs are the appropriate costs to assess in a bail bond forfeiture proceeding, and \"prejudgment interest\" begins to accrue on the face amount of the bond at 6% per annum from the date of the judgment nisi. Id. at 706 07. We affirm the judgment" . . .
View case


Silver Chevrolet Pickup VIN 1GCEC14T7YE257128 TAG NO. 3TMX16, AND OTHER ASSETS v. State

Published, 3/4/2003
. . . " Procedure, but intentionally withheld service of citation for approximately four months. Id. at 443 44. Relying on article 59.05(b) that forfeiture proceedings shall proceed \"in the same manner as in other civil cases,\" we applied the established rule that a party must both file suit within the applicable limitations period and exercise reasonable diligence in obtaining service of citation. We held" . . .
View case


Silver Chevrolet Pickup VIN 1GCEC14T7YE257128 TAG NO. 3TMX16, AND OTHER ASSETS v. State

Published, 3/4/2003
. . . ", the State seized a vehicle from its owner, timely filed the notice required under Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but intentionally withheld service of citation for approximately four months. Id. at 443 44. Relying on article 59.05(b) that forfeiture proceedings shall proceed “in the same manner as in other civil cases,” we applied the established rule that a party must both file suit within" . . .
View case


Ex Parte Ariza

Published, 1/24/1996
. . . ") (cited in Halper, 490 U.S. at 440, 109 S.Ct. at 1897). Although Texas forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, this label does not prevent the sanction of forfeiture from being characterized as punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Montana Dept. of Rev. v. Kurth Ranch, ___ U.S. ___, ___ ___, 114 S. Ct. 1937 , 1946 47, 128 L. Ed. 2d 767 , 779 (1994). Double Jeopardy and the Underlying Criminal" . . .
View case


Silver Chevrolet Pickup VIN 1GCEC14T7YE257128 TAG NO. 3TMX16, AND OTHER ASSETS v. State

Published, 3/4/2003
. . . " under Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but intentionally withheld service of citation for approximately four months.   Id. at 443 44.  Relying on article 59.05(b) that forfeiture proceedings shall proceed “in the same manner as in other civil cases,” we applied the established rule that a party must both file suit within the applicable limitations period and exercise reasonable diligence" . . .
View case


Johnson v. State

Published, 9/21/1994
. . . " (1989). This case involves the third of these protections. Appellant relies primarily upon two recent Supreme Court cases, Halper and Austin v. United States, ___ U.S. ____, 113 S. Ct. 2801 , 125 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1993). In Halper, the Supreme Court considered whether and under what circumstances a civil penalty may constitute \"punishment\" for the purposes of double jeopardy analysis. Halper, 490 U.S" . . .
View case


Vereda, Ltda. v. United States

Published, 11/26/2001
. . . ". Bonilla, Trial Attorney, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant appellant. With him on the brief were Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, and David M. Cohen, Director, Civil Division. Of counsel on the brief were John Hieronymus, Forfeiture Counsel, and Susan C. Holiman, Senior Attorney" . . .
View case


State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Marquez

Published, 9/13/1999
. . . " Judge of the Sixth Administrative Judicial Region. The respondent was sitting in three bond forfeiture cases in the 65th District Court—cause numbers 95 2187, 95 2188 and 95 2193. The defendant surety objected to the respondent sitting in these cases. The respondent concluded the bond forfeiture cases are civil and signed orders removing himself from hearing these cases pursuant to V.T.C.A" . . .
View case


United States v. Barnhardt

Published, 5/27/2008
. . . ". As explained more fully below, Mr. Barnhardt's motion — which is made pursuant to Section 983(e) of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (\"CAFRA\") — alleges that the United States Drug Enforcement Agency failed to provide sufficient notice before administratively forfeiting his property. 1 The Court will transfer Mr. Barnhardt's Section 983(e) motion to a new, separate civil action and proceed" . . .
View case


United States v. Ursery

Published, 6/24/1996
. . . " the opinion of the Court. In separate cases, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits the Government from both punishing a defendant for a criminal offense and forfeiting his property for that same offense in a separate civil proceeding. We consolidated those cases for our review" . . .
View case


United States v. Morgan

Published, 6/11/1996
. . . " Morgan claims that in light of the administrative forfeiture of his truck, a criminal conviction would constitute an impermissible second punishment for the same offense. He asserts recent decisions by the Supreme Court, holding that civil penalties can constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy, establish that a civil forfeiture such as the one to which he was subjected is also" . . .
View case


Kadonsky v. United States

Published, 7/10/2000
. . . " judgment in this case, and we have jurisdiction to review the final judgment entered. We thus vacate our earlier opinion and proceed to the merits of the case. III. 10 Federal law authorizes the civil forfeiture of funds which are the proceeds of drug transactions. See 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(6). The government must begin forfeiture proceedings within five years after it learns of the alleged offense. See" . . .
View case


United States v. $23,407.69 in U.S. Currency

Published, 9/19/1983
. . . " and the filing by the government of the civil proceedings for forfeiture of the currency. The Court, after a careful analysis, found justification for the eighteen month delay and upheld the right of the government to forfeiture. The Court held that the four factor balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 , 92 S. Ct. 2182 , 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972), is to be used for determining whether a delay in filing" . . .
View case


Alexander v. State

Published, 10/7/2005
. . . "925 So. 2d 214 (2005) Sedrick ALEXANDER v. STATE of Alabama. 2021143. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. October 7, 2005. *215 Connie Cooper, Phenix City, for appellant. Greg Waldrep, asst. district atty., Phenix City, for appellee. On Return to Remand THOMPSON, Judge. This action arises out of the State's attempt to condemn a vehicle pursuant to § 20 2 93, Ala.Code 1975. In Alexander v. State" . . .
View case


One Lot Emerald Cut Stones and One Ring v. United States

Published, 12/11/1972
. . . " of proof in criminal and civil cases precludes application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The acquittal of the criminal charges may have only represented \" `an adjudication that the proof was not sufficient to overcome all reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused.' \" Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U.S. 391 , 397 (1938). As to the issues raised, it does not constitute an adjudication" . . .
View case


Libretti v. United States

Published, 11/7/1995
. . . ", for Eighth Amendment purposes, from a traditional `fine.' \" Id., at 558. Similarly, in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983), we recognized that a \"criminal proceeding . . . may often include forfeiture as part of the sentence.\" Id., at 567. And in Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (1993), we concluded that even the in rem civil forfeiture authorized by 21 U.S. C . §§ 881(a)(4) and (a)(7" . . .
View case


Jonah Water Special Utility District v. Aaron Keith White and Lance White

Published, 8/31/2009
. . . ", dispensation and delivery of a controlled substance.” See id. art. 59.01(2)(C) (definition of “contraband” for purposes of civil forfeiture includes “the proceeds gained from” a felony under chapter 481 of the health and safety code). Thomas then filed a pro se notice of appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW A forfeiture proceeding under chapter 59 of the code of criminal procedure is a civil proceeding. See id. art" . . .
View case


$585.00 U.S. Currency v. State

Published, 8/31/2009
. . . " of a controlled substance.\" See id. art. 59.01(2)(C) (definition of \"contraband\" for purposes of civil forfeiture includes \"the proceeds gained from\" a felony under chapter 481 of the health and safety code). Thomas then filed a pro se notice of appeal. STANDARD OF REVIEW \t\tA forfeiture proceeding under chapter 59 of the code of criminal procedure is a civil proceeding. See id. art. 59.05(b). The State has" . . .
View case


United States v. $39,480.00 in US Currency

Published, 3/6/2002
. . . " to dismiss based on the Government's failure to comply with the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 983 . Section 983, part of the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (\"CAFRA\"), sets out the general rules for civil forfeiture proceedings. Pursuant to section 983(a)(3)(A), the Government must file a complaint for forfeiture \"not later than 90 days after a claim has been filed.\" 1 However" . . .
View case


Com. v. The Real Property and Improvements at 2338 N. Beechwood St., Phila., PA 19132 Appeal of: T. Burney

Published, 3/15/2016
. . . " should have been informed of her right to a jury trial because the trial court had no obligation to inform Claimant of such a right as “a petition for forfeiture is truly civil” and not criminal. (Trial Ct. Op. at 11.) The trial court concluded that Claimant waived any right to a jury trial because Claimant was bound by the deemed waiver of the civil rule, which states “that right shall be deemed" . . .
View case


United States v. One Hun. and Twenty Thous. Eight Hun.

Published, 1/2/2005
. . . ". § 1001 ) but acquitted him of all of the currency concealment and money smuggling charges ( 31 U.S.C. §§ 5316 and 5332). The sentencing guideline range for this conviction was zero to six months and a fine of from $250 to $5,000. I sentenced him to one year of probation for the section 1001 conviction and imposed no fine. On October 31, 2003, the United States filed a civil complaint in this matter" . . .
View case


State v. Benavidez

Published, 2/6/1963
. . . ", stating \"* * * the court being of the opinion that forfeiture in such cases may be predicated only upon a conviction of the defendant, the State's application for forfeiture is in all things denied and refused * * *.\" The case was dismissed without trial on the merits. The Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed. 356 S.W.2d 845. The State contended in the Court of Civil Appeals that the trial court erred (1" . . .
View case


Johnson v. State

Published, 10/16/1996
. . . " a petition for discretionary review before this Court. The State brought a cross petition for discretionary review. In his petition, appellant asks (1) Whether a civil forfeiture pursuant to Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure constitutes \"punishment\" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy Clause. (2) Whether a civil forfeiture is \"punitive\" for purposes of the Fifth Amendment Double" . . .
View case


United States v. Funds Up to and Including the Amount of $56,634 in U.S. Currency

Published, 2/4/2015
. . . "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12 0259 (ABJ) ) FUNDS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE ) AMOUNT OF $56,634 IN U.S. ) CURRENCY ON DEPOSIT IN ) BANESCO INTERNATIONAL, ) PANAMA, ACCOUNT #201000274785, ) TITLED IN THE NAME OF ) INVERSIONES CEDENO C.A., AND/OR ) PROPERTY TRACEABLE" . . .
View case


Safety Nat. Cas. Corp. v. State

Published, 11/7/2008
. . . " and the State filed petitions for discretionary review questioning our (1) original designation of these related cases as civil cases, \"CV\"; (2) assessment of costs against the State, as in a civil case; and (3) assessment of filing fees. We write now to reform our original judgment and to explain both our redesignation of these related cases to criminal cases, \"CR,\" and our assessment of costs against Safety" . . .
View case


John Emerson Howard v. State

Published, 3/6/1997
. . . " prosecution was barred by both the United States and the Texas constitutions. (1) See U.S. Const. amend. V; Tex. Const. art. I, § 14. We disagree. \tIn United States v. Ursery , U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996), (2) the United States Supreme Court held that generally civil forfeitures do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 2149. The Court outlined" . . .
View case


Safety National Casualty Corporation (Agent Michael W. Cox) v. State

Published, 11/7/2008
. . . " \tOur original opinion was issued on April 17, 2008. Safety Nat'l Cas. Corp. (Agent Michael W. Cox) v. State , 261 S.W.3d 160 (Tex. App. Houston 1st Dist. 2008, pets. filed). Both Safety National and the State filed petitions for discretionary review questioning our (1) original designation of these related cases as civil cases, \"CV\"; (2) assessment of costs against the State, as in a civil case" . . .
View case


Anthony Goings and 2004 Cadillac CTS Sedan, Texas License Plate CK2V636, VIN 1G6DM577840147293 v. State

Published, 10/20/2014
. . . " evidence that the 2004 Cadillac CTS Sedan was used in the performance of criminal activity and thus subject to seizure and forfeiture. This appeal resulted from the trial court’s ruling. 1 Goings’s original answer was filed on February 7, 2013. 3 APPLICABLE LAW Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure prescribes the procedures governing civil forfeitures. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 59.05" . . .
View case


Cowart v. State

Published, 3/14/2008
. . . "991 So. 2d 245 (2008) George William COWART and William Travis Cowart v. STATE of Alabama. 2060883. Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama. March 14, 2008. *246 Charles J. Kettler, Jr., of Kettler & Kettler, Luverne, for appellant. Troy King, atty. gen., and Yvonne A.H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee. PER CURIAM. George William Cowart (\"Cowart\") and William Travis Cowart (\"Travis\") appeal" . . .
View case


Epifanio Hernandez-Gonzalez v. State

Published, 8/9/2001
. . . " judgment of forfeiture of $1,495.00. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.06 (West Supp. 2001). Appellant's sole contention is that the State \"failed to present any facts tieing (sic) the $1,495.00 of U.S. currency to the proceeds of drugs.\" The State has not responded to appellant's brief. We will affirm the judgment. \tA State forfeiture action is a civil cause of action that proceeds to trial" . . .
View case


Ex Parte Camara

Published, 1/5/1995
. . . " instituted a civil forfeiture proceeding against appellants' mobile home and lot pursuant to the contraband forfeiture statute, TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 59.01 et seq. (Vernon Supp.1994) (\"Chapter 59 forfeiture\"). 3 The trial court rendered judgment, forfeiting appellants' mobile home and lot to the State. After the civil forfeiture proceeding, the State initiated criminal prosecution against" . . .
View case


State v. SILVER CHEVROLET PICKUP VIN

Published, 7/2/2004
. . . " the State seeks forfeiture of property used in a criminal enterprise, it \"shall file a lis pendens notice\" no later than three days after civil forfeiture proceedings are commenced. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 59.04(g). In this case, we must decide whether the State's failure to timely file a lis pendens notice deprives the court of jurisdiction. We hold that it does not. Accordingly, we reverse the court" . . .
View case


Prear v. State

Published, 9/25/1996
. . . " double jeopardy barred Jennifer Lynn Prear's prosecution for possession of a controlled substance after the State obtained a forfeiture arising from the same transaction. Because we find that civil forfeiture is not punishment for purposes of double jeopardy, we affirm. Summary of Facts The State charged Prear with possession of a controlled substance and initiated forfeiture proceedings under chapter" . . .
View case


United States v. $79,321.00

Published, 11/7/2007
. . . "522 F. Supp. 2d 64 (2007) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. SEVENTY NINE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY ONE DOLLARS ($79,321.00) in United States Currency, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05 1364 (RBW). United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 7, 2007. *65 William Rakestraw Cowden, Diane G. Lucas, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Martin F. McMahon" . . .
View case


Ex Parte Baucom

Published, 8/28/1996
. . . "). Appellant, James H. Baucom, contends the trial court erred in denying him habeas corpus relief. The constitutional issue he raises is a familiar and current one: whether a civil judgment of forfeiture constitutes a bar to later prosecution for a criminal offense on the basis of double jeopardy. The items civilly forfeited by appellant were a pickup truck, a hand gun, and some digital scales. He" . . .
View case


Ex Parte Rogers

Published, 11/29/1990
. . . " the United States Constitution's fifth amendment prohibition against double jeopardy is triggered by a civil forfeiture proceeding under the Controlled Substances Act 1 and whether a subsequent *947 criminal prosecution is consequently barred. Because we conclude that double jeopardy does not preclude the State from criminally prosecuting appellant, we overrule appellant's point of error and affirm" . . .
View case


1996 Dodge X-Cab Truck White in Color 5YC-T17, VIN 3B7HC13Z5TG163723 v. State

Published, 12/4/2003
. . . ". See 21 U.S.C.A. §§ 881(a)(4) & (a)(7) (West Supp. 2003). Austin argued the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause. Austin, 509 U.S. at 605. The Supreme Court concluded: (1) the protections afforded by the Eighth Amendment are not limited to criminal prosecutions, or civil proceedings so punitive as to be considered criminal in nature, (3) Id. at 607 09; (2) the Excessive Fines Clause" . . .
View case


State v. Sellers

Published, 5/16/1990
. . . " was added to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Article 738a read: \"An appeal may be taken either by the State or defendant, from every final judgment rendered upon a recognizance, bail bond, or bond taken for the prevention or suppression of offenses, and the proceedings in such cases shall be regulated by the same rules which are prescribed in civil suits, except that no security shall be required" . . .
View case


One Car, 1996 Dodge X-Cab Truck v. State

Published, 12/4/2003
. . . " afforded by the Eighth Amendment are not limited to criminal prosecutions, or civil proceedings so punitive as to be considered criminal in nature, 3 Id. at 607 09, 113 S. Ct. 2801 ; (2) the Excessive Fines Clause limits the government's *424 power to extract payments as punishment for some offenses, Id. at 609, 113 S. Ct. 2801 ; (3) \"punishment\" cuts across the division between criminal and civil" . . .
View case


Austin v. United States

Published, 6/28/1993
. . . " of Property, 964 F.2d 814 , 817 (1992). Although it thought that \"the principle of proportionality should be applied in civil actions that result in harsh penalties,\" ibid., and that the Government was \"exacting too high a penalty in relation to the offense committed,\" id., at 818, the court felt constrained from holding the forfeiture unconstitutional. It cited this Court's decision in CaleroToledo v" . . .
View case


in Re: State of Texas Ex Rel. Jose R. Rodriguez

Published, 7/6/2006
. . . " and included their argument about the County Attorney’s lack of authority as an affirmative defense to the bond forfeiture. Id.             The State, represented by the County Attorney, filed a motion to quash the bondsman’s pleadings and to strike the intervention because substantive civil relief may not be granted in a bond forfeiture proceeding. The motion to strike also asserted that the court lacked" . . .
View case


John Emerson Howard v. State

Published, 12/5/1996
. . . " States v. Ursery , U.S. , 116 S. Ct. 2135 (1996), (2) the United States Supreme Court held that generally civil forfeitures do not constitute punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Id. at 2149. The Court outlined a two part test for determining whether jeopardy attaches during a forfeiture proceeding. Id. at 2147. See Gaston v. State , 930 S.W.2d 222 , 224 (Tex" . . .
View case


United States v. Loe

Published, 3/31/1999
. . . ". The facilitation theory was derived from a passage in the legislative history of Section 981, Section 982's civil counterpart, which reads in part: \"The term `property involved' is intended to include the money or other property being laundered (the corpus), any commissions or fees paid to the launderer, and any property used to facilitate the laundering offense.\" Tencer, 107 F.3d at 1134 ( citing United" . . .
View case


Ortiz, Gabriela (1997 Chrysler LHS 2C3HC56FXVH554673) v. Texas, the State Of

Published, 7/13/2000
. . . ". The attorney representing the state must attach to the notice the peace officer's sworn statement under Article 59.03 of this code. Except as provided by Subsection (c) of this article, the attorney representing the state shall cause certified copies of the notice to be served on the following persons in the same manner as provided for the service of process by citation in civil cases: \t\t(1)\tthe owner" . . .
View case


United States v. $8,850

Published, 5/23/1983
. . . ". The question in this case is whether the Government's 18 month delay in filing a civil proceeding for forfeiture of the currency violates the claimant's right to due process of law. We conclude that the four factor balancing test of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), provides the relevant framework for determining whether the delay in filing a forfeiture action was reasonable. Applying the Barker test" . . .
View case


United States v. Floyd

Published, 2/23/1993
. . . ", the Court must now decide whether the Government's application should be granted. III. HEARING The Fifth Circuit in United States v. Thier, 801 F.2d 1463 (5th Cir.1986), set out the requirements for a hearing on a motion for pretrial restraint of property subject to post conviction forfeiture. In that case, the court held that Federal Rule of civil Procedure 65 must be followed in a motion for pretrial" . . .
View case


$808.00 U.S. Currency v. State of Texas

Published, 4/28/2005
. . . "11th Court of Appeals Eastland, Texas Memorandum Opinion   $808.00 U.S. Currency              Appellant Vs.                    No. 11 04 00184 CV Appeal from Coleman County State of Texas              Appellee                This is an appeal from a civil forfeiture proceeding under TEX. CODE CRIM. PRO. ANN. ch. 59 (Vernon Pamph. Supp. 2004 2005). The trial court ordered that $808.00 in U.S" . . .
View case


Gaither v. State

Published, 12/12/1951
. . . " to dismiss these appeals under Rule 415 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, because no brief was filed for appellant within the time required by Rule 414 thereof. Appellant has filed a reply to the State's motion, in which he explains his delay by saying that he thought the rule for filing briefs in bond forfeiture cases was the same as in criminal cases. Article 864, Code of Criminal Procedure" . . .
View case


United States v. LAND

Unpublished, 9/27/1995
. . . ", Movant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana USDC No. 91 CV 1380 1 (October 19, 1995) No. 95 30578 2 Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Robert Smith contends that the district court erroneously denied his motion to set aside the order of default. He argues that the civil forfeiture proceeding" . . .
View case


United States v. 2002 BMW, Model X-5

Unpublished, 6/16/2009
. . . " with the magistrate judge that Plaintiffs’ success on their claim under 18 U.S.C. § 983 (e) to set aside the administrative forfeiture of certain jewelry for lack of sufficient notice does not permit the recovery of reasonable attorneys’ fees available to a substantially prevailing party under the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000 (“CAFRA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2465 (b)(1). Because the requested fee award" . . .
View case


United States v. May

Unpublished, 7/12/1996
. . . " the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. conviction or sentence. May subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence alleging that the civil forfeiture of his property, prior to his guilty plea, constituted “punishment” and therefore May’s subsequent conviction and sentence violated double jeopardy principles. The district court granted in part" . . .
View case


United States v. Materne

Unpublished, 4/10/1996
. . . " convictions on double jeopardy grounds based on a prior civil forfeiture of drug proceeds found in his possession upon his arrest. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Materne is trying to take advantage of the attachment of jeopardy in a proceeding where, following proper notice, no one timely entered an appearance or contested the forfeiture" . . .
View case


United States v. Clubb

Unpublished, 8/2/1996
. . . " of Texas (1:95 CR 83 1 & 1:95 CR 83 2) _________________________________________________________________ July 30, 1996 Before DAVIS, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* John Wesley and Helen Ruth Clubb appeal the denial of their motions to dismiss an indictment charging them with conspiracy to possess, and possession with the intent to distribute, marijuana, contending that the civil" . . .
View case


James Conard v. United States

Unpublished, 5/2/2012
. . . " contained in the bank accounts. The account at issue in this appeal contained a balance of $278,478.34 (hereinafter referred to as the “subject currency”).1 Pursuant to the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) began administrative forfeiture proceedings against the subject currency. 1 Conard’s other Chase bank account contained a balance of $192.09" . . .
View case


United States v. One 1975 Cessna 500

Unpublished, 11/27/1995
. . . " District Court for the Western District of Texas (DR 94 CV 26) November 17, 1995 Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Enrique Alberto De Los Angeles Guila Morales appeals from the judgment for the Government in a civil forfeiture action concerning an aircraft, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881 (a)(4). He asserts that the district court erred by refusing to suppress the * Local Rule" . . .
View case


United States v. Jaime Torres

Unpublished, 11/16/2011
. . . " and actually were obtained by the Government, rendering the forfeiture of substitute property in violation of the forfeiture statute. A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP on appeal in a civil case must show that he is a pauper and that the appeal raises nonfrivolous issues. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562 , 586 (5th Cir. 1982). A movant seeking leave to proceed IFP in a criminal case must make the same" . . .
View case


Lori Haberman v. United States

Unpublished, 10/30/2014
. . . " balance was accordingly reduced by her share of the proceeds, or $10,438.42, on September 21, 2009. On December 23, 2013, Ms. Haberman filed a motion seeking return of, or compensation for, the Goldwin property. The district court construed the motion as a civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . The United States moved the court to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim or, in the alternative" . . .
View case


United States v. Tilley

Unpublished, 3/24/2004
. . . " with respect to the defendants’ homes pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Contemporaneously with the forfeiture proceedings, on October 8, 1992, the Andersons and Tilleys were indicted on various drug offenses. The indictment was based on the same acts that gave rise to the civil forfeiture proceeding. On April 7, 1993, the 2 Andersons and Tilleys moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds" . . .
View case


United States v. Anderson

Unpublished, 3/24/2004
. . . " with respect to the defendants’ homes pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Contemporaneously with the forfeiture proceedings, on October 8, 1992, the Andersons and Tilleys were indicted on various drug offenses. The indictment was based on the same acts that gave rise to the civil forfeiture proceeding. On April 7, 1993, the 2 Andersons and Tilleys moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds" . . .
View case


United States v. Tilley

Unpublished, 3/24/2004
. . . " with respect to the defendants’ homes pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Contemporaneously with the forfeiture proceedings, on October 8, 1992, the Andersons and Tilleys were indicted on various drug offenses. The indictment was based on the same acts that gave rise to the civil forfeiture proceeding. On April 7, 1993, the 2 Andersons and Tilleys moved to dismiss the indictment on the grounds" . . .
View case


Harmon v. United States

Unpublished, 9/10/1996
. . . " for further proceedings, we caution that Harmon’s credibility hangs by a slender thread, and sanctions should be forthcoming if it appears that he has sworn falsely that he had no knowledge of the judicial forfeiture. In December, 1991 the federal government filed a civil forfeiture proceeding covering several tracts of land and various personal property in Dallas owned by Harmon, his deceased brother" . . .
View case


United States v. Rigoberto Aguirre

Unpublished, 5/17/2012
. . . " (the foreclosure properties). Mrs. Aguirre argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying her motion for relief from the final judgment of forfeiture and her petition for adjudication of interest in the forfeiture properties. She maintains that she showed excusable neglect sufficient to be granted relief from the final judgment of forfeiture pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1" . . .
View case


Next 100