Title: State v. Terry

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P. 40
 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                 No. 91-524


 State of Vermont                             Supreme Court

                                              On Appeal from
      v.                                      District Court of Vermont,
                                              Unit No. 2, Chittenden Circuit

 David S. Terry                               September Term, 1992



 Matthew I. Katz, J.

 Thomas M. Kelley, Drug Prosecutor, State's Attorneys and Sheriffs
    Department, Montpelier, for plaintiff-appellee

 David J. Williams of Sleigh & Williams, St. Johnsbury, for defendant-
    appellant

 Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, and Susan R. Harritt, Assistant
    Attorney General, Montpelier, for amicus curiae Office of Attorney
    General



 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.



      GIBSON, J.    Defendant appeals a decision of the Vermont District
 Court denying his motion for return of property brought pursuant to
 V.R.Cr.P. 41(e) and 57.  He requests return of $2,820 that was seized from
 his person by Vermont state law enforcement officers at the time of his
 arrest but was subsequently the subject of a federal forfeiture proceeding.
 We affirm.
      On March 2, 1989, the Vermont State Police executed a search warrant at
 the home of defendant and his girlfriend.  At this time, defendant was
 arrested for simple assault and was searched incident to the arrest.
 Officers seized three-quarters of an ounce of marijuana and $2,820 found on
 his person.  On April 3, 1989, defendant was arraigned on charges stemming
 from this incident.
      State officials turned the $2,820 over to the federal Drug Enforcement
 Administration (DEA) on August 2, 1989.  Defendant was duly notified of the
 seizure and the commencement of federal forfeiture proceedings brought
 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. { 881.  He was informed that he could petition the DEA
 for return of the property or contest the forfeiture in federal court.
 Defendant filed a petition for remission or mitigation of forfeiture with
 the DEA.  The property was declared forfeited on November 22, 1989, and
 defendant was notified by letter dated November 24, 1989, that his petition
 had been denied.  No further action was taken in the federal proceedings.
      On March 27, 1991, defendant pled nolo contendere in state court to a
 misdemeanor charge of possession of marijuana.  He was fined and received a
 suspended sentence.  On September 4, 1991, defendant filed a motion for
 return of the $2,820 in the Vermont District Court pursuant to V.R.Cr.P.
 41(e) and 57.  The court denied the motion without written decision on the
 grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the res.
      On appeal, defendant relies on the rule of prior exclusive juris-
 diction enunciated in Penn General Casualty Co. v. Pennsylvania,