State of Louisiana v. Property seized from Gregory Cox ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     STATE OF LOUISIANA
    COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
    STATE       OF      LOUISIANA                                                                               NO.      2020       CW        0901
    VERSUS
    PROPERTY             SEIZED           FROM           GREGORY          COX                           DECEMBER 22,                      2020
    In    Re:                State          of      Louisiana,                  applying           for          supervisory                   writs,
    23rd       Judicial               District            Court,         Parish          of     Ascension,              No.
    114043.
    BEFORE:          McDONALD,                McCLENDON,                  HOLDRIDGE,             CHUTZ,          AND     PENZATO,              JJ.
    WRIT            GRANTED.                        The         district           court'         s     August            21,         2020
    judgment,                denying             relator,             the          State     of     Louisiana' s,                   Motion           to
    Strike,             is     reversed.                      Respondent,             Jonathon           Alan           Barrett,              failed
    to        comply                with           the          mandatory                 requirements                   of         La.         R. S.
    40: 2610( B)(             4) & (          6)         by    failing to provide specific information
    concerning "                    the       date,             identity of  the  transferor,  and the
    circumstances                      of [         his]         acquisition                 of         the       interest                in     the
    property."                   See         State            v. $    144, 320. 00,               2012- 0466 (            La.        12/ 4/     12),
    
    105 So. 3d 694
     &           State            v. $    29, 940. 00           in     U. S.         Currency,              2017- 648
    La.     App.          3d       Cir.         8/    31/ 17),           
    227 So. 3d 304
    .           Accordingly,                   the
    State          of    Louisiana' s                    Motion           to    Strike        is       granted           and        respondent
    Barrett' s                claim           is          stricken              from        the         underlying                  forfeiture
    proceeding.
    JMM
    PMc
    AHP
    Holdridge                and        Chutz,            JJ.,          dissent.             Unlike            State          v.     2003
    Infinity G35,                      2009- 1193 (             La        1/ 20/ 10),        
    27 So. 3d 824
    ,        and       State        v.
    144, 320. 00,               201.2- 0466 (               La        12/ 4/   12),    
    105 So. 3d 694
     (    where           there
    was       no     proof             of    who          owned           the      property            in       question),               in     this
    case        the      trial              court         made        a     factual          finding             that         the       money        in
    question             belonged             to         Mr.     Barrett,            a     third        party,           and       it     was    not
    money       that          could be properly seized by the                                            State.               In    fact,        the
    court          made         a      determination                       that      the      money             was      earned           by     Mr.
    Barrett             from           his         employment                  and    that         it       was        his      accumulated
    savings             from        that         employment.                    Since       the        trial          court        has     made         a
    factual             determination                     of     the        ownership             of    the       money     by a third
    party,         any attempt to                         seize           those      assets by the                    State because of
    a    technical               violation                 of       La.      R. S.        40: 2610       would           be    illegal           and
    unconstitutional.
    COURT       OF      APPEAL,              FIRST            CIRCUIT
    DEPUTY            LINRK       OF      COURT
    FOR     THE       COURT
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 2020CW0901

Filed Date: 12/22/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/22/2024