Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-15-00689-CV

TEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS AND NINETY-SIX 

CENTS ($10,562.96) UNITED STATES CURRENCY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-14694

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: September 28, 2016

AFFIRMED

Lonnie Ray Hines, owner of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and NinetySix Cents ($10,562.96) in United States Currency (the “Currency”), appeals the trial court’s 

judgment awarding the Currency to the State of Texas, as contraband subject to forfeiture under 

Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX.CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 59.01-.14 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2016). We overrule appellant’s issues on appeal, and affirm the trial court’s 

judgment.
04-15-00689-CV

- 2 -

ANALYSIS

The State filed an Original Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture of the Currency and 

Other Certain Property against appellant on September 16, 2014. The State alleged that the 

Currency and personal property were seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant and were subject 

to forfeiture as contraband that was: (1) used or intended to be used in the commission of the felony 

drug offense of delivering, manufacturing and/or possessing a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine 

and marijuana, and/or the felony offense of money laundering; (2) proceeds gained from 

commission of such felony offenses; and/or (3) acquired with such proceeds. See TEX.CODE CRIM.

PROC. ANN. art. 59.01(2)(B)(i),(iv), (C), (D) (West Supp. 2016). A report of seizure listing the 

seized currency and other property was attached to the State’s forfeiture petition in accordance 

with article 59.04(b). Id. art. 59.04(b) (West Supp. 2016). The record reflects that appellant filed 

an Answer and General Denial in response to the State’s Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture 

on September 29, 2014. Irma Hines intervened in the forfeiture suit as owner of the personal 

property seized. One year later, an Agreed Final Judgment was entered awarding the Currency to 

the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, an agency of the State of Texas, and 

awarding the seized personal property to Irma Hines. The agreed judgment was approved by 

counsel for the State and by the attorney representing appellant and intervenor Irma Hines. The 

judgment recites, “[a]ll Parties agree to waive any and all rights to appeal this Agreed Final 

Judgment.” Appellant thereafter filed a pro se notice of appeal.

Proceeding pro se on appeal, appellant argues that the State violated his right to due process 

by seizing the Currency (i) without providing proper notice and (ii) without establishing a 

substantial connection between the Currency and the criminal activity. See TEX. CONST. art. I, 

§ 19. As pointed out by the State, appellant did not raise either of these due process complaints in 

the trial court, and therefore did not preserve them for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (as a 
04-15-00689-CV

- 3 -

prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show the complaint 

was made to the trial court); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. 2003) (due process argument 

must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).

Even if preserved, appellant’s arguments would fail on their merits. As his first issue, 

appellant asserts he did not have the chance to answer because notice was never sent to him by the 

government. However, as noted above, the record contains appellant’s Answer and General Denial 

filed in response to the State’s forfeiture petition, which indicates appellant had notice of the 

State’s seizure and intent to forfeit the Currency. As his second issue, appellant asserts there is 

“no direct evidence” that the Currency was derived from or intended for use in the manufacture, 

delivery, sale, or possession of a controlled substance. The record contains the seizing officer’s 

sworn statement that he executed the search warrant at appellant’s residence and found appellant 

in the kitchen “attempting to swallow Crack Cocaine;” seized 7.0 grams of Crack Cocaine, a digital 

scale, and a loaded handgun in the kitchen; seized 90.0 grams of marijuana in a filing cabinet in 

the dining room; seized another handgun and $9,917.96 cash in a safe in appellant’s bedroom; and 

seized $645.00 cash from appellant’s pocket. The officer further averred that appellant is 

unemployed, and stated that appellant receives currency and other valuable items in exchange for 

narcotics. The officer’s affidavit provides sufficient evidence to support the forfeiture of the 

Currency. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 59.05(b) (West 2006) (State’s burden in 

forfeiture suit is preponderance of the evidence).

Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.1

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

 1 Appellant filed a “Motion to Expand the Record” with copies of an unsigned 2011 federal tax return and an “IRS 

Tax Return Transcript” for the years ending December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013. None of these documents 

appear in the clerk’s record and there is no indication they were ever filed in the trial court. Our review on appeal is 

restricted to the contents of the appellate record which consists of the documents filed in the trial court and the 

transcript of any hearings held in the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1.