### NUM BER 13-06- 0015 8-CV 

## COURT OF A PP EA LS T H I R T E E N T H D I S T R I C T O F T E X AS C O R P U S C H R IS T I - 

## EDI NBURG $281 ,420.0 0 IN U .S. C UR REN CY, A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.

On ap pe al f rom th e 3 98t h Dist rict C ou rt of H ida lgo C ou nty , T exas 

## D I S S E N T I N G ME MOR A N D U M OP I N I ON B efo re C h ie f Ju st ic e Va ld ez a n d J u st ic es G arza a n d V el a D is se n ti n g Memo ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ve la I respect f ully

dissent to the majority ’s decision to award the $2 81, 420 to Gregorio Hue rt a. Fi rs t, I w oul d hol d the tr ial co urt c or re ctl y g ra nted jud g m e n t notw it hst andi ng the
v erdic t bec ause a dir ect ed v er dic t w oul d hav e been proper as H uer

ta t otal ly fail ed toT h i s q u e s ti o n a s k e d th e ju ry, “W h a t a m o u n t o f m o n e y s h o u l d b e a w a rd e d to th e i n te rv e n e r (W rit e 1 i n a fi g u re b e tw e e n $ 0 .0 0 a n d $ 2 8 1 ,4 2 0 .0 0 ).” 2 est abl is h hi s ri g ht to the proper ty under any theor

y of l aw
. Seco nd, I w oul d hol d the S tate est abl is hed as a mat ter of law thatthe $281,42 0 c o nst it uted cont ra band s ubj ectto forfeiture. A. Hue rt a Prov ed No Theory Of Law Ves ti ng H im W it h The R ig ht To K eep The Currency I di s a g ree w it h the maj or it y ’s opi nio n aw ardin g H uer ta $2 81,420, bec ause he nei ther
ra is ed n o r p ro v ed any

l eg al theor

y enti tl ing hi m to retai n any por ti on of the money . The major it y se ems t o c oncl ude t hat b ecaus e i t bel iev es that the S tate faile d to prov e i ts ri g ht under the forfeiture s tatut e, t he money , by default , g oes to Hu e rta. I v iew the is sues sepa rately. I believ e tha t the State had the bu rden of esta blishing its rig ht to the curren cy pursu ant to the forfeiture statu te. I also believ e tha t Huerta had the burde n to est ablish h is ri g ht t o the funds un der so me theor

y of law othe r than by

default

. Q uest ion N o. 2 ask ed th e j ur y , “ Do y ou find by a pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce that t h e in t e rve n e r [ Hu e rt a ] wa s in a c t u a l o r j o in tp o s s e s s io n o f t h e cu rr e n c y at t

he ti m e of seiz ure ?” (emp hasis ad ded ). The j ur y r espon ded i n the aff ir mati v e. In respon se to Ques ti on N o. 3, the jur y aw arded hi m $70,00 0. 1 T he m ajority hold s thatHuerta is entitle d to $2 81, 420 beca use The r ecord reflect s t hat H uer ta, the b ail ee i n pos ses si on of the Freig htl ine r wh e re t h e cu rr e n c y wa s fo u n d , wa s t h e i n d i vid u a l wh o fo u n d t h e cu rr e n c y. The r ecord furt her

r eflect s t hat H uer

ta g av e c o n se n t to D PS an d U .S. Cu s t o m s o f

f ic e rs t o se a rc h t h e Fr e ig h t li n e r a n d i t s co n t e n t s o n two occasio ns, th ereb y

supp o rt ing the jury ’s fin ding thatHuerta w as in poss ess ion of t he cur re ncy at the ti me of s eiz ur e. Acc ordin g ly , w e find th at more than a s cint ill a of compet ent e v ide nce suppo rt s t he j ur y ’s co ncl usi on th atH ue rta w as i n po s s es s i on o f t he F r ei g ht l i ne r a nd t he c ur r en c y at th e ti me3

of sei z ur e. Beca use the j ur y found that the cur re ncy w as not cont ra band an d that Hue rt a w as in poss ess ion of the F re ig htl ine r and c ur re ncy at the t ime of seizure, q uest ion th ree of the jury charge w as imm ate rial. $281,42 0.00 v. State , 13-0 6-15 8-CV, 10 08 W L__

___ , at *__

__ (T ex. App.– Corpus Christ Mar.___ _, 20 08, no pe t. h.) (me m. op.). The charg e, ho w ev er , di d noti ncl ude a q uest ion about w hether H uer ta w as eit her in poss ess ion of the F re ig htl ine r at t he ti me of sei z ur e or w hether he w as a bai lee at the ti me of sei z ur e. Acc ordin g ly , t he j ur y di d notmake a findi ng on e it her i ss ue. Ev en ass uming thatH uer

ta establ is hed as a matter of law that he w as the b ail ee i n pos ses si on of the F re ig htl ine r at t he ti me of sei z ur e , th a t d o e s n o t ent it le him to an y por ti on of the $281,42 0. For the pu rpose s of

the forfeiture statu te, a rticle 59.0 1(8) state s thatseiz ure means the rest ra intof proper ty b y a peac e off ic er

under Ar ti cl e 59. 03( a) [se iz ur e w it h a s ear ch w ar ra nt] or ( b) [s eiz ur e w it hout a s ear ch w ar ra nt] of thi s c ode, w hether

the off ic er

r est ra ins the p roperty

by phy si cal forc e or

by a di spl ay of the off ic er 's authori ty , and i ncl udes the c oll ect ion of proper ty or t h e a c to f

t a k in g p o s s e s s io n o f

p ro p e rt y. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN
. art. 59.01( 8) ( Ver non Su pp 2007 ); State v . Si lv er C hevr ole t Pickup , 140 S.W .3d 691 , 694 (Tex. 2004 ) ( per curiam ). At t he ti me the $281,42 0 w as sei z ed, Jes us Pul ido w as the Fr eig htl ine r’ s reg is tered
ow ner
. By v ir

tue of hi s ow nershi p int er est in the Freig htl ine r, he ow ned ev er y thi ng i nsi de the F re ig htl ine r, i ncl udi ng the $281,42 0. The fact that Huer ta found t he $281 ,420 ins ide the F re ig htl ine r did not g iv e hi m an ownershi p i nteresti n the money su per ior to that of Pul ido

. The ev ide nce does not show that Puli do rel inq uis hed his ow nershi p r ig hts ei ther in the F re ig htl ine r or

the $281,42 0 pr ior

to sei z ur e. Fur

ther more, H uer

ta ha d been pai d for his tow ing se rv ic es pr ior to his di sc ov er

y of the $ 281,420

. There is no e v ide nce to s how4

that Hue rt a w as an interestholder in either the Freig htl ine r or

the $281,42 0 at the ti me the
m o n e y wa s se ize d

. Att h e t im e P u li d o re li n qu is h e d h is cl a im t o t h e $ 2 8 1 , 4 2 0 , la wenforc ement au thor it ies w er e i n pos ses si on of the money , notH uer ta. I al so bel iev e tha t t he burden w as o n H uer ta t o es tabl is h hi s o w n r ig ht t o the
cur re ncy bec ause he cle ar ly

w as not t he ow ner

of the F re ig htl ine r or

i ts cont ents

. No is sue
w as submi tted to t he j ur y thatw oul d hav e g iv en H uer ta the ri g ht t o recov er

money thathe cl ear ly d id not ow n. I ag re e w it h the maj or it y thatq uest ion three w as immater ial , and I
w ould g o f urthe r an d hold t hat t here was not a single ma terial issue sub mitt ed to the jury to allow H uerta to recover. Even if the trial court incorrectly grant ed a JNOV w ith regard to t he i ss ue of w hether the sei z ed money

w as cont ra band, there i s s ti ll n o l e gal b a si s t o all ow Hue rt a to re cov er
. At best , he w as a bai lee

. A bai lment is a del iv er ing of a th ing under w hic h the bai lee ac q uires an independ ent a nd te mpora ry ex cl usi v e pos ses si on for
a s peci fic p ur pose. Nor thc utt v. State , 131 S.W . 112 8 , 1 1 3 0 ( T e x. Cr im. App. 1910)

. A
mere temporar

y bai lment did not g ra nt hi m per manent p oss ess ion to the p ro per ty se iz ed. The most that Hue rt a c an s how i s t hat h e w as in temporar y pos ses si on of the Freig htl ine r for pur poses of tow ing

. There w er e no is sues su bmit ted t o the j ur y to show ei ther thathe
w as enti tl ed to the proper ty bec ause itw as abandoned by the ow ner

or that a cont ra ct for
re w ard had been enter ed i nto. Ther e i s s impl y no l eg al basi s for

H uer ta t o r ecov er
. Tex as law prov ide s a v enue s f o r deter mini ng enti tl ement t o aband oned proper ty

. For i nst ance, sec ti on 7 2 .1 01 of the Tex as Proper ty C ode out li nes the p re sumpti on of abandon ment. T EX
. P ROP
. C OD E A NN . § 72.101 (V er non 200 7)

. Here, t he maj or it y presumes t h at t he
m o n e y m u s tgo t o t h e S t a t e o r to Hu e rt a
. I b e li e ve t h a t e a c h p a rt y wa s re qu ir e d t o p ro ve it s o w n ent it lement . I f Puli do, a s o w ner of the c ur re ncy , a b a n d o n e d hi s r ig ht t o the5

c u rr e n c y, m e a s u re s shou ld have b e e n t a k e n t o p ro c e s s t h e m o n e y a s a b a n d o n e d p ro p e rt y. I bel iev e the Sta te prov ed i ts enti tl ement t o the cu rrency
. But ev en if it did n’t , t her e w as no is sue submi tted to t he j ur y enti tl ing H uer

ta t o r ecov er

the money
. I w oul d hol d tha t H uer

ta ha s fai led to est abl is h as a matter of law thathe i s e nti tl ed to t he $281 ,420 or

any por ti on of the that amount. I w oul d ov er ru le the t hird i ss ue. B. Th e State Estab lished As A Matt er Of Law T hat Th e Currency W as C ontraband I al so bel iev e tha t t he St ate e sta bli shed as a matt er of law that the $ 281,420 w as cont ra band. C hapter

59 o f the c ode of cr imi nal proc e d u re authori z es the for feiture of cont raba nd, w hich is def ined as: (2 ) property of

any natu re , i ncl udi ng r eal , personal , t ang ibl e, or i ntang ibl e, tha t is: * * * ( B ) u s e d o r

i n t e n d e d t o b e u s e d i n t h e c o mm i s s i o n o f: (i ) any felony under Cha pter 481, Hea lt h and Safety C ode ( Tex as Con troll ed Sub stan ces Act); (i i) any felony under C hapter 483, H eal th an d Safety C ode;

. . . . * * * (C ) the p ro ceeds g ain ed from t he commi ss ion of a felony li ste d i n Parag ra ph (A ) or ( B) of thi s s ubdi v is ion , . . . . (D) acquired w ith proce eds g aine d f rom the comm ission of a felon y listed in Parag ra ph ( A) or

( B) of thi s s ubdi v is ion , . . . . T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . arts . 59.01( 2) (B )( i) , (i i) , 2(C ), 2(D ) (V er non Su pp. 2 007)

. The Tex as Supreme C our

t has st ated that “[ m]oney i s s ubj ectto forfeiture i f it is der iv ed from
or int ended for use in manufactur ing , del iv er ing , sel li ng , or poss ess ing a co n trol ledT EX
. C ON ST
. ar t

. 1, § 9. 2 6 subst ance .” State v

. $11 ,014. 00 , 820 S.W .2d 7 83, 7 84 ( Tex . 199 1)

. To pr ev ail i n a for

feiture proceed ing , t he St ate mus t s ati sfya tw o- par t t est

. Fi rs t, the Stat e must show

probabl e c ause, or

“ a r eason abl e bel ief a ‘ subs tanti al conne cti on ex is ts 2 bet w een the pro perty to be forfeited and the criminal activity def ined bythe sta tute .’” Har dy
v. State, 10 2 S. W .3 d 12 3 , 1 2 9 (T e x. 20 0 3 ) (qu o ti n g Fi fty -S ix T h o u sa n d Sev

en H undr

ed Do lla rs i n U .S. Cur

re ncy v. Sta te , 7 3 0 S

. W

. 2 d 6 5 9 , 6 6 1 ( Te x . 1 9 8 7 ) )

. “ ‘ I t i s t h a t li nk, or
nex us, betw een t he proper ty to be forfeit ed and the s tatut or il y defined cr imi nal ac ti v it y that esta blishes p roba ble cau se, w ithou t w hich t h e Sta te lacks au tho rity to seize a person’s prop erty.’” Id . (qu o ti n g Fifty-Six Thousa nd Se ven Hun dred Dollars in U.S. Currency , 730 S.W .2d at 661 ). Seco nd, t he St ate must prov e by a pr eponderance of t he ev ide nce that the s eiz ed proper ty i s c ontraband a nd th er efore s ubj ectto fo rf e it u re
. $18 ,80 0 in U.S. Currency v. State, 9 6 1 S

. W

. 2 d 2 5 7 , 2 6 0 ( Te x . A p p
. – H o u s t o n [ 1 s tD i s t

. ] 1 9 9 7 , n o w r i t) ; $ 1 6 2 , 9 50 in Cur re ncy of U .S. v. State, 9 11 S.W .2d 5 28, 529 (Tex. App. –Ea stland 199 5, w rit denied );
see State v

. $11 ,014. 00, 820 S.W .2d a t 784

. Con v ic ti on of an un der ly ing felony i s n ot a pr er eq uis it e to forfeiture. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 59 .05 (d) (Vernon 2 006 ). Because there i s n o di re ct ev ide nce show ing thatthe $281,42 0 w as der iv ed from
or i ntended for u se in manufactur ing , d e liv er ing , s ell ing , or pos ses si ng a c ontroll ed subst ance , the S tate was required to prese nt “suf f icient circum stan tial evi den ce.” Ant rim
v. State, 868 S .W .2 d 8 09, 8 12 ( Tex . Ap p.–Aus ti n 1993, no w ri t)

. “W hen rely ing on circumsta ntial evidence , ‘the St ate is required to o f fer proof w hich do es mo re than raise3 S e e $ 2 4 ,1 8 0 .0 0 v . S ta te , 865 S. W

. 2d 1 81, 184 ( T ex. Ap p. –C or pus Chr i st i 199 3, wr i t den i ed)

(evi de nc e t ha t m on ey w rap pe d i n s m al l bu nd l es si gn i fi es i t w as us ed i n d rug de al ).

S e e A n trim v . S ta te , 86 8 S

. W

. 2d 80 9, 81 4 (T ex
. A pp
. –A us t i n 1 99 3, no w ri t ). 4 S e e id

. 5 7 a me re surmise o r suspicion regarding the sou rce of the curren cy .’” Id . (qu o ti n g Mo ney of the United States

$8,500.00 v. State , 774 S.W .2d 788, 792 (Tex

. App.–H oust on [14th D is t.] 1989, no w ri t) ). H ow ev er , “ the S tate is not re q uired to ex cl ude ev er y othe r poss ibl e w ay in w h ich th e m o n e y m igh t ha ve b e e n a cqu ire d ; it is requ ire d on ly to pro ve th e fa ctth ro u gh a ba lance of

proba bilities.” Id

. In the forfeit ur e c ontext, there are no conc re te r ule s for co urts to ap ply

w hen
ev alu ati ng w hether ev ide nce is suffici ent to suppo rta j udg ment g ra nti ng forfeit ur e. Id . at 814. W h e n d e t e r mi n i n g w h e t h e r c u r r e n c y i s c o n t r a b a n d , c o u rt s h a v e c o n s i d e r e d the follo w ing factors: ( 1) the manner in w hic h the c ur re ncy w as pack ag ed and w ra pped; ( 2) 3
sus pic iou s acti v it y

consi ste nt w it h drug traff ic ki ng ; and (3 ) the a mount of money at is sue. 4 5 Here, t he ev ide nce show ed: (1 ) Jo hnny M er cado hired Greg or io Hue rt a to tr anspo rta Freightliner tractor f rom Alvin to Mercedes; (2) Jesus Pulido was the Freightliner’s
re g is tered ow ner ; ( 3) w hen Trooper T or re s s topped Hue rt a near San Juan, M er cado, w ho
w as in a s epar ate v ehi cl e, did not sto p; ra ther , he ci rc led around there tw o or three ti mes and left; ( 4 ) T ro o p e r

T o r r e s t e s t i fi e d t h a tt h e F r e i g h t l i n e r ’ s m i d d l e a x l e “ w a s m i s s ing someth ing , w hic h appeared strang e;” (5 ) x -ray s o f the F re ig htl ine r’ s e ng ine co mpart ment and tw o rear

ax les w er e dar k a nd i nconc lus iv e; ( 6) both a K -9 se ar ch of the F re ig htl ine r and a search of

the Freightliner’s engine com partm ent a nd rear axles by v arious troo pers rev eale d no drugs; (7) Huerta remo v ed the oil plug f rom the bottom of the Fr eightliner’sH ue r t a’ s sear ch of t he Fr ei ght l i ner r ai ses t he i ssue o fwhet her a bai l ee m ay sear ch t he b ai l ed 6 p r o p e r ty w ith o u t t h e o w n e r ’s c o n s e n t a n d th e n c la im w h a te v e r h e o r s h e f in d s in s id e th e b a ile d p r o p e r ty. 8 ax le, stuck

his fing er

in the openi ng , and , feeli ng pl ast ic , he opened the F re ig htl ine r’ s h ub
com partm ent w here he foun d tw ent y to thirty little bun dles w rapp ed in duct tape ; (8) these 6 bundl es cons is ted of pa ck ag ed cur re ncy total ing $281,42 0; and (9 ) ev en thou gh Huer ta noti fied M er cado about the F re ightl ine r’ s l ocat ion and that cur re ncy w as found in the Freig htl ine r, H uer

ta de nie d he a r ing anythi ng from ei ther M er cado or

Pul ido r eg ardin g ei ther the F re ig htl ine r or

the cur re ncy . Fur

ther more, in i ts thi rd amended peti ti on, t he St ate n oted that alt houg h M er cado and Pu li do w er e se rved with c it ati on and peti ti on, t hey di d not answer or appea r. In sum, the Freig htl ine r w as car ry ing a l arg e amountof cur re ncy w ra pped i n tw enty t o t h irt y b u n d le s h id d e n in a lo c a t io n t h a t m a d e t h e c u rr e n c y u n d e t e c t a b le t o e it h e r x- ra ys o r th e no se of

a d ru g-sn if

f in g do g. T h e evid e n ce al so sh o wed th a t e ve n t h o u g h a la rge am oun t of

cash w as foun d in Pulido ’s v ehicle, he failed to claim it. T he am oun t of currency at issue is bey ond thatwhich o rdinary pe ople carry in their v ehicles for legitimate busine ss p u rp o s e s
. M o re o ve r, H u e rt a p re s e n t e d n o e vid e n c e c o n c e rn in g t h e o ri gi n o f t h e cu rr e n c y. Ev e n t h o u g h t h e r e w a s n o s h o w i n g o f w h e n , w h e r e , o r fro m w h o m t h e c ur re ncyw as acq uired, t he St ate “ is not re q uired to ex cl ude ev er y pos si ble w ay

i n wh ich the money mig ht ha v e been acq uired.” Spur s v . St ate , 850 S.W .2d 6 11, 6 14 ( Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler 1993,
w ri t den ied ); Ant

rim , 868 S.W .2d a t 812

. I w oul d hol d tha t t he unc ontradi cte d ev ide nce of all of the c ircums tanc es tak en tog ether sh ow s t hat t he St ate e sta bli shed as a matter of law the $281,4 20 i s c ontraband in that itw as der iv ed f ro m o r in te nded for us e i n manufactur ing , del iv er ing , s ell ing , or9

poss ess ing a c ontroll ed s ubst ance and that ther e i s a r eason abl e bel ief tha t a subs tanti al
conne cti on or

nex us ex is ts betw een the $281,42 0 and the cr imi nal ac ti v it y defined by

the Tex as Con troll ed Sub sta nces Ac t, e.g ., poss ess ion or del iv er y of coc ain e. I w oul d ov er ru le Hue rt a’s se cond is sue and affirm the t ri al cour t’ s j udg ment.

RO SE V ELA J u s t i c e
Di ss enti ng M emora ndum Opi nio n del iv er ed and filed thi s 3 rd day

of Apr il , 200 8.