Case Title: Libretti v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: S-11-0243

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2012-05-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
IN THE MATTER OF U.S. CURRENCY TOTALING $7,209.00: JOSEPH LIBRETTI and FRANK A. HOHLIOS v. THE STATE OF WYOMING2012 WY 75Case Number: S-11-0243Decided: 05/30/2012This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in Pacific Reporter Third.  Readers are requested to notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Supreme Court Building, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002, of any typographical or other formal errors so that correction may be made before final publication in the permanent volume.  
APRIL 
TERM, A.D. 2012
 
IN 
THE MATTER OF U.S. CURRENCY TOTALING $7,209.00:JOSEPH LIBRETTI and FRANK 
A. HOHLIOS,Appellants(Claimants),v.THE STATE OF 
WYOMING,Appellee(Plaintiff).
 
Appeal 
from the District Court of Natrona County
The 
Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge 
 
Representing 
Appellants:
Joseph 
Libretti and Frank A. Hohlios, pro se
 
Representing 
Appellee:
Gregory 
A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney 
General
 
Before 
KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.
 
 
GOLDEN, 
Justice.
 
[¶1]      This is an appeal 
from a forfeiture order entered by the district court against a total of 
$116,584.43 and certain items of personal property.  The cash and personal property were 
seized from several individuals because of their alleged use in violation of the 
Wyoming Controlled Substances Act.  
Appellants Joseph Libretti (Libretti) and Frank Hohlios (Hohlios) claim 
$7,209.00 of the cash seized and appeal the forfeiture order, contending that 
the district court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing without ruling on 
their motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and in denying them 
the opportunity to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment 
motions or avail themselves of the right to a jury trial.  We affirm.
 
ISSUES
 
[¶2]      Libretti and 
Hohlios filed a joint brief on appeal, acting pro se, and presented the following 
issues for review:
 
I.          
The District Court erred in not ruling on the claimants’ Motion to 
Dismiss/Motions for more Definite Statement.
 
II.         
The District Court erred in not allowing claimants to file an Answer, 
conduct discovery, and file Motions for Summary Judgment.
 
III.        The 
District Court erred in not ruling on, and not granting, Claimants’ Motions for 
more Definite Statement.
 
IV.       Claimants 
were wrongly denied a Jury trial.
 
V.        If 
the August 10, 2011 proceeding was only an evidentiary hearing, as Plaintiff 
claims, and not a trial, then the Court lacked authority to enter its 
judgment.
 
VI.       Claimant 
Frank Hohlios was unfairly denied his right to be heard at 
trial.
 
FACTS
 
[¶3]      On February 16, 
2011, the State of Wyoming (State) filed in district court a Verified Complaint 
For Forfeiture In Rem (Forfeiture Complaint).  The Forfeiture Complaint alleged that 
$116,584.43, three vehicles, and one firearm, seized from several different 
individuals, had been used in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances 
Act, and that the items were therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1049.  Most of the 
persons from whom the property was seized did not respond, and default judgment 
was entered against those individuals.  
Libretti and Hohlios, who between them claimed $7,209.00 of the seized 
cash, both timely responded to the Forfeiture Complaint with the filing of 
motions to dismiss or in the alternative for a more definite statement.  Hohlios filed his motion on March 28, 
2011, and Libretti filed his motion on May 23, 2011.  
 
[¶4]      On June 1, 2011, 
the district court contacted Libretti by letter concerning his filing.  Through that letter, the district court 
directed Libretti to submit a request for a hearing, as 
follows:
 
            
I acknowledge receipt of your letter concerning the referenced case.  Your letter has been filed in the court 
file in the matter and a copy forwarded to [the State].
 
            
Please submit a request for setting, requesting a hearing on your 
motion.  Upon receipt, a hearing 
will be set to allow you to present the matter to the Court for 
consideration.
 
[¶5]      On June 8, 2011, 
the State filed a Motion for Setting on Complaint for Forfeiture, requesting 
that the court set the Forfeiture Complaint for hearing, and on June 10, 2011, 
the district court issued a Notice of Setting.  The Notice of Setting notified the 
parties that a hearing on the Forfeiture Complaint had been set for August 10, 
2011.  Specifically, the Notice of 
Setting provided:
 
            
NOTICE IS GIVEN that Wednesday, August 10, 2011, at 10:30 
a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, is hereby set for a hearing on the Complaint for 
Forfeiture for one hour before Judge Catherine E. Wilking.  [Emphasis in 
original.]
 
[¶6]      On June 15, 2011, 
Libretti filed a motion to appear at “Motion Hearings” by telephone, and on June 
20, 2011, the court issued an Order Granting Motion to Appear by Telephone, 
which stated, in relevant part:
 
            
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Telephonic Appearance 
at Motion Hearings, be, and hereby is, granted.
 
            
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph V. Libretti, Jr. shall appear at the 
hearing on the Complaint for Forfeiture scheduled for August 10, 2011, at 10:30 
a.m. by telephone. 
 
[¶7]      On August 10, 
2011, the district court held the evidentiary hearing on the State’s Forfeiture 
Complaint.  Libretti appeared by 
telephone and objected when the court called the hearing as an evidentiary 
hearing.  Libretti informed the 
court that he understood that the hearing was to be a hearing on the pending 
motions to dismiss and not an evidentiary hearing on the merits, and that he was 
not prepared to present evidence.  
The court overruled Libretti’s objections and proceeded with the 
evidentiary hearing on the State’s Forfeiture Complaint.  The State presented the testimony of 
Special Agents Zach Winter and Taylor Courtney of the Wyoming Division of 
Criminal Investigation, and Libretti testified on his own behalf.  
 
[¶8]      With a cover 
letter dated August 16, 2011, counsel for the State provided the district court 
with a draft order of forfeiture and also related the 
following:
 
            
There is another matter I believe I must relate to the Court.  After the hearing was adjourned, a man 
in the back of the courtroom asked when he would get his chance to be 
heard.  I asked him who he was, and 
he identified himself as Frank Hohlios.  
Mr. Hohlios then left the room before anyone could answer him.  He seemed 
agitated.
 
            
In order to avoid an ex parte communication, I am sending copies of this 
letter to Mr. Hohlios and Mr. Libretti.  
Please let me know if you have any questions about this. 

 
[¶9]      On August 26, 
2011, the district court issued its Forfeiture Order.  It ordered the forfeiture of the cash 
and personal property, based on the following findings:
 
            
This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff’s Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In 
Rem.  The Complaint covered all 
of the Defendant Property listed in the caption, and named several potential 
claimants.  All but two of the 
potential claimants failed to answer, and the Clerk of this Court has entered 
their defaults. The claimants who answered are Joseph Libretti, and Frank 
Hohlios (on behalf of the estate of Brian Hohlios).
 
            
This Court held a hearing on the Complaint on August 10, 2011.  Counsel for the Plaintiff appeared in 
person, and Mr. Libretti appeared by telephone.  Plaintiff called two witnesses, Special 
Agents Zach Winter and Taylor Courtney of the Wyoming Division of Criminal 
Investigation.  The agents testified 
about the investigation that led to the seizure of currency from Mr. Libretti 
and Mr. Hohlios, and both opined that the seized funds were proceeds from 
violations of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Plaintiff introduced one 
exhibit, which both agents identified as a “pay/owe sheet” confiscated from 
Brian Hohlios.  Mr. Libretti 
testified on his own behalf.
 
            
This Court finds that the testimony of Agents Winter and Courtney was 
credible and persuasive.  The Court 
further finds that Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that 
the funds seized from Mr. Libretti and Mr. Hohlios were proceeds from violations 
of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act.  
Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that those funds are forfeited 
to the State of Wyoming in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann. 35-7-1049.  
 
[¶10]   By letter filed August 29, 2011, 
Judge Wilking responded to the State’s letter, with copies to Hohlios and 
Libretti.  The letter 
stated:
 
            
Thank you for relating what happened in the courtroom after 
adjournment.  Mr. Hohlios did not 
notify the Court that he would be present at the hearing or of his desire to be 
heard.  There were several 
individuals in the courtroom when the case was called, and the Court was unaware 
of his presence.  

 
[¶11]   On September 8, 2011, Hohlios and 
Libretti filed their Joint Notice of Appeal from the district court’s Forfeiture 
Order.  The August 10, 2011, hearing 
was not reported, and the parties therefore filed statements of evidence 
pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03.  On 
October 17, 2011, the district court issued an order stating that “for the 
purposes of W.R.App.P. 3.03, the statement of evidence presented by Joseph 
Libretti, and later clarified by The State of Wyoming is settled and approved 
for purposes of appeal in this matter.”  

 
STANDARD 
OF REVIEW
 
[¶12]   “We review the construction of rules of procedure in the same manner 
and under the same standards as we do statutes, i.e., they present questions of law that we review de novo.”  
Six 
v. State, 
2008 WY 42, ¶ 8, 180 P.3d 912, 916 (Wyo. 2008) (citing 
Bixler 
v. Oro Management, LLC, 
2006 WY 140, ¶ 5, 145 P.3d 1260, 1262 (Wyo. 2006)).  Where action 
on a motion to dismiss involves a question of law, this Court’s review is 
likewise de novo.  Wilson v. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs of Teton 
Cty., 2007 WY 42, ¶ 11, 153 P.3d 917, 921 (Wyo. 2007).  To the extent that this appeal presents 
constitutional claims, those claims are also reviewed de novo.  Meyers v. State, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 8, 124 P.3d 710, 714 (Wyo. 2005).
 
[¶13]   This Court reviews claims of error 
in the denial of a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to an abuse of 
discretion standard.  Mead v. Leo Sheep Co., 32 Wyo. 313, 318, 
232 P. 511, 512 (1925).  “Judicial 
discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from 
objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is 
right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or 
capriciously.”  Wilson v. Lucerne Canal & Power Co., 
2003 WY 126, ¶ 11, 77 P.3d 412, 416 (Wyo. 2003) (quoting Pasenelli 
v. Pasenelli, 
2002 WY 159, ¶ 11, 57 P.3d 324, 329 (Wyo. 2002)).  We will find 
an abuse of discretion when the district court’s 
disposition shocks the conscience of this Court and appears so unfair and 
inequitable that reasonable persons could not abide it.  DeJohn v. DeJohn, 2005 WY 140, ¶ 11, 121 P.3d 802, 807 (Wyo. 2005).
 
[¶14]   The final three issues presented by 
Libretti and Hohlios, which assert error in the holding of an evidentiary 
hearing rather than a jury trial, and in the denial of Hohlios’ right to be 
heard, were raised for the first time on appeal.  We therefore use a plain error analysis 
in reviewing those claims.  Rathbun v. State, 2011 WY 116, ¶ 28, 257 P.3d 29, 38 (Wyo. 2011).  To show 
plain error, an appellant “must establish, by reference to the record, a 
violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law in a clear and obvious, not 
merely arguable, way and that the violation adversely affected a substantial 
right resulting in material prejudice.” Jealous v. State, 2011 WY 171, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d 1101, 1104 (Wyo. 2011) (citing Cazier 
v. State, 
2006 WY 153, ¶ 10, 148 P.3d 23, 28 (Wyo. 2006)).  To establish material prejudice, an 
appellant “must show a reasonable possibility exists 
that he would have received a more favorable verdict in the absence of the 
errors.”  Jealous, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d  at 1104 (citing 
Pendleton 
v. State, 
2008 WY 36, ¶ 11, 180 P.3d 212, 216 (Wyo. 2008)).
 
DISCUSSION
 
A.        
Holding of Evidentiary Hearing Before Ruling on Pending Rule 12 
Motions
 
[¶15]   In their first two issues, Libretti 
and Hohlios contend that the district court erred in holding an evidentiary 
hearing on the merits of the State’s Forfeiture Complaint before ruling on their 
motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement.  They argue the court’s action deprived 
them of the opportunity to file answers, conduct discovery and file summary 
judgment motions.  We 
disagree.
 
[¶16]   The district court was not required 
to rule on the pending Rule 12 motions before the hearing on the merits.  Rule 12 itself contemplates that a trial 
court may postpone decision on pending Rule 12 motions until the evidentiary 
proceeding on the merits.  It 
provides:
 
* 
* * The service of a motion permitted under this rule alters these periods of 
time as follows, unless a different time is fixed by order of the 
court:
 
(1)  If the court denies the motion or 
postpones its disposition until the trial on the merits, the responsive pleading 
shall be served within 10 days after notice of the court’s 
action[.]
 
W.R.C.P. 
12(a)(1).
 
[¶17]   Additionally, nothing in the 
district court’s action precluded or in any manner interfered with the ability 
of Libretti and Hohlios to file answers, conduct discovery or file summary 
judgment motions.  Rule 12 allows a 
party to assert certain defenses by motion before filing an answer to a 
complaint, but it does not preclude the filing of an answer while that motion is 
pending.  Likewise, Libretti and 
Hohlios were free at any time to conduct discovery and file motions for summary 
judgment.  See W.R.C.P. 26(d) (sequence and timing 
of discovery); W.R.C.P. 56(b) (party against whom a claim is asserted may move 
“at any time” for summary judgment).   

 
[¶18]   Indeed, pursuant to Rule 12(a)(1), 
Libretti and Hohlios should have filed an answer within ten days after receiving 
notice from the district court setting the hearing on the Forfeiture 
Complaint.  That order implicitly 
postponed hearing on the pending motions until the hearing on the merits of the 
complaint, and Rule 12(a)(1) thus required the filing of an answer within ten 
days of that order.  If there were 
any confusion concerning the subject of that hearing, that confusion should have 
been resolved by the district court’s subsequent order authorizing Libretti to 
appear by phone.  In one paragraph, 
that order authorized Libretti to appear by phone at the motions hearing, and in 
a separate paragraph, it authorized Libretti to appear by phone at the hearing 
on the Forfeiture Complaint, both hearings on the same date.  The district court’s orders made it 
clear that any pending motions would not be heard before the hearing on the 
Forfeiture Complaint, and Libretti and Hohlios were thus on notice to file their 
responsive pleadings.  

 
[¶19]   Finally, we reject the contention 
of Libretti and Hohlios that the district court erred in not ruling on their 
Rule 12 motions.   Implicit in 
the district court’s Order of Forfeiture, which granted the State its requested 
relief, was the court’s denial of the pending Rule 12 motions.  The record is not clear whether argument 
was heard on the motions during the August 10th evidentiary hearing, but it is 
clear that the district court instructed Libretti to request a setting if he 
wished to be heard on the motions.  
Moreover, Rule 6 of the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure requires the 
moving party to request a hearing on any pending motion, and it authorizes the 
court to rule on such motions without a hearing.  W.R.C.P. 6(c)(2).  Thus, the district court did rule on the 
motions, and whether the court did so with or without a hearing on the motions, 
it acted within its authority under the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure.  
 
B.        
Denial of the Motions for More Definite 
Statement
 
[¶20]   In their third issue, Libretti and 
Hohlios contend that the district court erred in denying their motions for a 
more definite statement.  We find no 
abuse of discretion in the court’s denial of the motions.
 
[¶21]   Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of 
Civil Procedure allows a party to move for a more definite statement if the 
complaint to which that party must respond is “so vague or ambiguous that a 
party cannot reasonably be required to frame a responsive pleading.”  W.R.C.P. 12(e).  Concerning the specificity required in 
pleading, this Court has also held:
 
“We 
have previously determined that notice pleading is recognized by our rules of 
civil procedure.” BB 
v. RSR, 
2007 WY 4, ¶ 12, 149 P.3d 727, 732 (Wyo. 2007). 
Litigants need not present their claims in any technical language or form, and 
pleadings must be liberally construed to ensure substantial justice.  Harris 
v. 
Grizzle, 
599 P.2d 580, 
583 
(Wyo. 
1979); 
see also W.R.C.P. 
8(e)(1), 
8(f). 
However, notice pleading imposes the “fundamental . . . obligation of every 
pleader to apprise his adversary of the nature of the claim against him.” 
Glover 
v. Giraldo, 
824 P.2d 552, 556 (Wyo. 1992). 
A complaint is sufficient if it provides the opposing party fair notice of the 
claims against him. Lynch 
v. Patterson, 
701 P.2d 1126, 1134 (Wyo. 1985). 
See also Jackson 
State Bank v. Homar, 
837 P.2d 1081, 1085-86 (Wyo. 1992).
 
Krenning 
v. Heart Mountain Irrigation Dist., 
2009 WY 11, ¶ 30, 200 P.3d 774, 783 (Wyo. 2009).
 
[¶22]   The Wyoming statute governing 
forfeitures and seizures in connection with the trafficking of controlled 
substances provides that the following property is subject to 
forfeiture:
 
            
Any property or other thing of pecuniary value furnished in exchange for 
a controlled substance in violation of this act including any proceeds, assets 
or other property of any kind traceable to the exchange and any money, 
securities or other negotiable instruments used to facilitate a violation of 
this act.  Property used or 
furnished without the consent or knowledge of the owner is not forfeitable under 
this section to the extent of his interest.
 
Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1049(a)(viii) (LexisNexis 2011).
 
[¶23]   The State brought its Forfeiture 
Complaint pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1049, and in reference to the 
property of Libretti and Hohlios, it stated:
 
            
10.       
During the period of September, 2009 through June, 2010, through 
information received, surveillance of the persons and residences and other 
investigative means, Agent[s] identified Ronald Ennis, William Breedan, Nathan 
Goen, Randa Fowler, Michael George, Bobbie Jo Tucker, Joseph Libretti, Kimberly 
Croy, Linda Montoya, Brian Hohlios, and other individuals as users, 
co-conspirators, and distributors of controlled substances.  These transactions took place primarily 
in the Casper, Natrona County, Wyoming area.
 
* 
* * * 
 
            
23.       
On June 2, 2010, Agents executed a federal search warrant for the 
residence of Libretti and Hohlios located at [address], Casper, Natrona County, 
Wyoming.  During the course of the 
search, Agents confiscated controlled substances, drug paraphernalia, and 
$7,209.00 in U.S. Currency.
 
* 
* * * 
 
            
29.       
The State alleges the $116,548.43, five conveyances and one firearm 
sought to be forfeited constitutes funds and property that were used, or 
intended for use, in the delivery or receipt of controlled substances, or were 
otherwise used to facilitate a violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances 
Act, as amended.  

 
[¶24]   The State’s Forfeiture Complaint 
adequately informed Libretti and Hohlios of the basis for the State’s claim 
against their property.  If Libretti 
and Hohlios felt additional information was required to defend against the 
claim, that information could have been obtained through discovery.  See BB v. RSR, 2007 WY 4, ¶ 13, 149 P.3d 727, 733 (Wyo. 2007) (“[A] pleading should give 
notice of what an adverse party may expect, and issues should be formulated 
through deposition-discovery processes and pretrial hearings.”).  We thus find no abuse of discretion in 
the district court’s denial of Libretti and Hohlios’ motions for a more definite 
statement.
 
C.        
Denial of Jury Trial
 
[¶25]   In their fourth and fifth issues, 
Libretti and Hohlios argue that the district court erred in denying them their 
right to a jury trial, and they further contend that the court was without power 
to issue a decision because it did not hold a “trial.”  As we noted in our standard of review, 
these issues were not raised below and are thus subject to a plain error 
analysis.
 
[¶26]   With respect to Libretti and 
Hohlios’ right to a jury trial, their argument fails one of the prongs of the 
plain error analysis, namely, the violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of 
law.  Assuming for purposes of this 
analysis that Libretti and Hohlios were entitled to a jury trial, Rule 38 
provides, in relevant part:
 
            
(1)  By Whom; Filing. — Any 
party may demand a trial by jury of any issue triable of right by a jury by (A) 
serving upon the other parties a demand therefor in writing at any time after 
the commencement of the action and not later than 10 days after service of the 
last pleading directed to such issue, and (B) filing the demand as required by 
Rule 5(d).  Such demand may be 
indorsed upon a pleading of the party.
 
* 
* * *
 
            
(d)  Waiver. — The failure of 
a party to serve and file a demand as required by this rule constitutes a waiver 
by the party of trial by jury.  A 
demand for trial by jury made as herein provided may not be withdrawn without 
the consent of the parties.
 
W.R.C.P. 
38(b)(1), (d).
 
[¶27]   Libretti and Hohlios could have 
filed a jury demand at any time after the commencement of the State’s forfeiture 
action, but they never filed such a demand.  Additionally, as noted earlier in this 
opinion, Rule 12(a)(1) required Libretti and Hohlios to file their answers 
within ten days of the court’s notice that it would be proceeding to a hearing 
on the merits of the State’s Forfeiture Complaint before ruling on the pending 
Rule 12 motions.  Thus, not only was 
there no jury demand for the district court to deny, Libretti and Hohlios 
affirmatively waived their right to a jury trial when they failed to file a 
timely jury demand.  The district 
court did not commit plain error in proceeding with a bench trial rather than a 
jury trial.
 
[¶28]   This brings the Court to Libretti 
and Hohlios’ contention that the district court was without authority to enter 
judgment because it held an “evidentiary hearing” rather than a “trial.”  This contention does not present an 
alleged violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law, but is instead a 
question of semantics.  It is clear 
from the record that the district court took evidence on the State’s Forfeiture 
Complaint, including at least one exhibit and the testimony of two DCI agents 
and Libretti himself.  In other 
words, the court held a bench trial.  
In the absence of a jury demand, the court acted within its authority in 
issuing its order following the bench trial, regardless of the terminology used 
to describe the proceeding.  See W.R.C.P. 39(b) (“Issues not demanded 
for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the 
court.”).
 
D.        
Denial of Hohlios’ Right to be Heard
 
[¶29]   In his final issue on appeal, 
Hohlios claims that he was denied the right to be heard at trial because he was 
present in the courtroom, but was not permitted to participate in the 
proceeding.  Because this issue is 
also one that was not raised below, we use a plain error analysis in reviewing 
the claimed error.  

 
[¶30]   The failure in Hohlios’ claim under 
the plain error analysis is his inability to establish, “by reference to the 
record,” a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law.  See Jealous, ¶ 11, 267 P.3d  at 1104.  The parties’ Rule 3.03 statements 
stipulated that Hohlios was present in the courtroom, but the record is devoid 
of substantiated evidence of Mr. Hohlios’ assertion that he attended the 
evidentiary hearing with the intention of participating, but was denied access 
to counsels’ tables by courtroom security personnel.  Additionally, the district court, by 
letter after the hearing, confirmed that the court was unaware that Hohlios was 
present and desired to participate in the proceedings.  The court stated, “Mr. Hohlios did not 
notify the Court that he would be present at the hearing or of his desire to be 
heard.  There were several 
individuals in the courtroom when the case was called, and the Court was unaware 
of his presence.”  

 
[¶31]   Under these circumstances, the 
record does not demonstrate that Hohlios was denied the right to be heard.  As a pro se litigant, Hohlios was entitled to 
some leniency in the stringent standards applied to attorneys, but he also had 
an obligation to reasonably adhere to the “procedural rules and requirements of 
the court.”  Young v. State, 2002 WY 68, ¶ 9, 46 P.3d 295, 297 (Wyo. 2002).  One such 
requirement was to inform the district court of his presence in the courtroom 
and his desire to be heard and participate in the hearing.  The record does not support Hohlios’ 
contention that he asserted his right to participate in the hearing or that the 
district court denied him that right.  
We thus find no plain error.  

 
CONCLUSION
 
[¶32]   The district court acted in 
accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure in ruling on the State’s 
Forfeiture Complaint and did not deny the rights of Libretti and Hohlios to file 
answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or otherwise fully 
participate in the proceedings.1
 
FOOTNOTES
1Libretti 
and Hohlios introduced their arguments on appeal with the contention that the 
forfeiture of their property was a form of criminal punishment that was exacted 
without due process of law.  First, 
as discussed in the opinion, the district court’s ruling on the State’s 
Forfeiture Complaint complied with the procedural requirements under the Wyoming 
Rules of Civil Procedure.  
Furthermore, the premise that a civil forfeiture is a form of criminal 
punishment is not accurate.  See Doles v. State, 2007 WY 119, ¶ 13, 163 P.3d 819, 823 (Wyo. 2007) (discussing the differences between criminal 
proceedings and civil forfeiture proceedings).  We thus also reject the claims of 
Libretti and Hohlios to the extent they assert constitutional violations based 
on a criminal punishment analysis.