### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00262-CV

Will ie Lloyd, Jr., Appell ant
v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF TOM GREEN COUNTY, 340TH JUDICIAL DIS TRICT

NO. B-99 -0526 -C, HON ORABLE CU RT F . STEIB, JUDGE PRESI DING
Willie Llo yd, Jr
. , ap pe als fro m the d istr ict c ou rt ’s o rd er dismissing his pet itio n for t he
r et ur n o f almo st $4 00 0 s eiz ed wh en he wa s a rr es t ed fo rdr ug o ffen se s. We will a ffir m.

On May 3, 1999, police

in San A ngel o arrested Lloyd a nd S ar a Ha rd in while driving
a ren tal car. I n a se ar ch pu r su an t t o ar r es t , t he po lice fo un d in the car a l ockbox contain in g $3700, two watches, and an

ot her f our items of

je wel ry. A nother $275 wa s fo und in Llo yd’s wa llet. The police t hen exe cut ed a sea rc h war ra nt for a m ot el roo m registered to Hardin . The poli ce bel ie ved Ha r din an d L lo yd w er e b o t h st aying in the roo m. The

police found m

ore t han 200 grams

of crack cocain e, ma il addressed to Lloy

d, medi cation prescri

bed to Llo yd, men ’s clo t hing , an d e igh t it ems of jew elry in the ro om. Mo st of t he co ca ine wa s lu mpe d in “c o o kie s” ; s o me had b een ch opped up
and package d i

nto sm al l er “ pers onal use dosag es.” On May 12, the State f i l ed a n otice of s ei zure a nd i nten ded f orfe i ture of t he $39 75 a nd th e j ewel ry , al l egi ng i t was c ontrab and un

der ar tic l e 59.0 1 of

the c ode of

cri m i na l procedu re. See1 The seizing o ffi cer ’s affidavit was at t ache d t o t he St at e’s p et itio n. T he affidavit st at ed t hat t he off i cer b el i ev ed th at the c ash

wasprocee ds f

rom th e del i very of a controll ed substance and that t he j ewel ry was acqui

red with s uch proceeds. He bas ed

his belief on t he la

rge amount of cocai

ne that gr ea t ly ex ce eded “ ty pi ca l pers on al us e a moun ts” an d th e f ac t th at the pr epa ra t ion o f the co caine in dic ated an inte nt to sell

i ndi vi dual rocks. H e f

urthe r stated s ome

of the j ewel

ry was hidden w ith t he dr ug s a nd ca sh an d o t he rjew elr y wa s h id de n s ep ar at ely.
2 Under section 14.003 of the Ci vi l Practice & Rem

edi es Code, a court ma

y dis miss a c laim if it finds t he clai

m is fri volous. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003 (a)(2 ) (West Supp. 2 001). In deci din g a cl ai m i s f riv olous, the court ma

y c onsi der the in ma te’s chan ce of succe ss, whether

there is an arguab le

basis i n l aw or fact for the clai

m, wh ether t he inmate can p ro ve su ppo rt ing fact s, a nd whether the clai m i s subs tantial ly si mi la r to a earlie

rcla im f i l ed by the sa me i nm atean d a ri si ng f rom the s am e opera tiv e f acts. Id . § 14.00 3(b ). 2 Te x. Code Crim. P. Ann. arts. 59.01-.11 (West Supp. 2001) ( governi ng f or f ei ture proce edi

ngs). 1 Llo yd contes ted the forfe iture. On May 19, 2000, t he di strict court signed an “A greed Fi nal Judgmen t of Fo rf ei tur e. ” Th e a

gr ee d j udgm

en t, whi ch Ll oyd an d hi s atto rney

signed “ approved as to f orm a nd s ubs tanc e,” recited

t hat t he pa rt ies ag re ed t hat t he ca sh and t he jewe lry wer e co nt ra band and sub j ect to forf

ei ture. Under

the agreem

ent, the cash was

forfe ited to t he State; the j ewel ry was returned to Lloyd.

On Ap r il 6, 2001, Lloy

d petitioned

to have the m

oney returned to hi

m. He al le ged t he St at e had sho wn no pr oo f tha t t he mone y was co nt ra band. The district cou rt dism issed Lloyd’s cla im under cha

pter 14 of the Texas

Ci vi l Practice and Re

me die s Code, which

go ver ns su its filed by in ma tes in forma paup eris
. 2 See Te x. Ci v. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann . §§ 14.001-.014 ( West Supp. 20 01 )
. Llo yd c o nt en ds t he ev ide nc e w as insu fficie nt t o su pp o r t t he co ur t ’s dis miss al.

An agree d j udgm

en t cures al l non j uri sdi cti onal errors. Minnick v. Rogers , 873 S.W.2d 420, 42 2 ( T ex . Ap p. —T yler 19 94 , no wr it )
. On ap pe al, t his Cou rt i s l i m i ted to t he ag re ed fac t s and
ma y not m ake f i ndi ngs not con f ormi ng to thos e f

acts. White

v. State , 329 S. W.2 d 44 6, 449 (T ex.3

Ci v. App.—Dal

las 1959, writ r ef’d

n. r . e. )
. A p ar t y may no t ag r ee t o a ju dg men t an d t he n la t er file
a new p ro cee ding d isput ing t he fac t s r ec it ed in the e arl i er agr eem en t. See Cortez v. Li berty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. , 885 S.W .2d 466 , 470 (Tex. A pp.—El Paso 19 94, wri

t den i ed). A par t y is barr ed by coll ateral estoppe l f rom a ttacki ng a j udgm en t to whi ch he earl i er agr eed. Barr v. Re solution T rust Corp. , 837 S. W.2d 627 , 62 8 (T ex. 1 992 ); Freeman v. Cher okee Water C

o. , 11 S.W.3d 480, 483 (T ex. App .—T exark ana 20 00, pet . de nied); Cortez , 885 S.W .2d at 47 0.

Wh en Llo yd s ig ne d the agre ed j udg men t, h e w ai ve d the n onjurisd i cti ona l err or of whi ch he now c omp l ai

ns . Minnick , 873 S.W.2dat 4 22 . Th e S tate wa s n ot re qui re d to prove f

ac ts adm itted by Lloyd. White , 329 S.W.2d at 449. By si gni ng the agreed j udgme

nt, Lloy d adm itted that t he m oney and the j ewel ry were contraband an

d subj ect to forfe iture. Lloyd m ay not now att ack

t he agreed judg ment a nd insist on p ro of t hat t he mone y was co nt ra band. We o ver ru le Lloyd’s ar gument
an d a ffir m t he dis t r ict co ur t ’s jud gme nt o f dis miss al.

Lee Yeakel, Justice Be f ore C hi ef Ju sti ceA bou ss i e, J us ti ce s Y ea

ke l an d Pa tters on Af fi rmed File d: October 25, 2001 Do No t Publis

h