# FILED
Ap ril 11, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

SAMUEL TYRONE BRYANT, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) Davidson Chancery ) No. 95-710-III VS. ) ) Appeal N o. ) 01A01-9509- CH-00398 MICHAEL C. GREENE, ) Commissioner of the Tennessee ) Departm ent of Saf ety, )

) Defendant/Appellee. )

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRANDT, CHANCELLOR

For the Plaintiff/

Appellant : For the Defendant/Appellee : Francis X. Santore, Jr. Charles W . Burson SANTORE

AND SANT ORE Att orne y General and Reporte r Greeneville, Tennessee Rebecca Lyford Assistant Attorney General



## AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE1 The notice of seizure listed Mr. Bryant’s address as “257 W . Market St. Apt. 3.” Mr. Bryant asserted in a

later af fidavit that he actually resided at 257 W. Market Street, Apt. 4. The (continued...) -2- 

## O P I N I O N

This a ppeal involves the forfeiture of an automobile under the Tennessee Drug Control Act. The automobile’s owner filed a petition for judicial review of the forfeit ure order in the Chan cery Cour

t for Da vidson County, a sserting th at the forfeiture proceeding was unconstitutional because h e didnot recei ve a notice of seizure o r a copy of the department’s forfeiture order. The trial court dismissed the petit ion becau se it was not timely fil ed. We affirm.
On May 5, 1994 , Samuel Bryant was driving several children to a local skating rink when h e was pulled over by two members of the First Judicial C ircuit Drug Task Force. After searching Mr. Bryant’s 1985 Nissan Maxima, the officer s arrested Mr. Br

yant on charge s of evadin g arrest, child negle ct, and dr iving on a revoked license. After they arrived at the jail, one of the a rre sting officers informed Mr. Bryant that his car was subject to forfeiture because the authorities had found thr

ee tenths o f a gram

of crac k cocaine

in it.
Whattranspired after this point is disputed. The officer a sserte d that he gave Mr. Br

yant the re quired notic e of seizure form and that

Mr. Bryant refused to sign the acknowledgment on the form that he had receiv ed it. Mr. Br yant, wh o claims to be functionally illiterate, maintains that he was never read or s hown the form. Mr. Br

yant later ple aded guilty t

o driving on a

revoked li cense and evading arrest but was never charged with possession of the crack cocaine.
Mr. Bryant did

not file a timely cla

im for his automobi le, and on

August 12, 1994, the Depa

rtment of Safety entered a f

inal order forfeit ing the automob ile and acompact d

isc player . The de

partment mailed a c opy of its forfeiture order to Mr. Bryant at the a ddr ess listed on the notice of seizure, 1 but the letter was later1 (...continued)

discrepancy in the addresses might be significa nt inother circumstances, but it is not signifiicant in this case. -3- returned m arked “u ndelivera ble as addr

essed: for warding or

der expir ed.” T he departme ntmade no other attempts to deliver the notice. Mr. Bryant claims that he did not lear

n of the for

feiture until October 1994 wh en he discha rged his lawyer and took his file to a new lawyer. The reco rd contains no explan ation concernin g how a copy

of the depa

rtment’s Augu st 12, 1994 order ca me to be foundin Mr. Bryant’s former attorney’s file. Mr. Brya nt and his ne w lawye

r did not filed a petition for judicial review of the Augu st 12, 1994 order until March 7, 1995.
Petitions for judicial review must be filed within sixty days after the entry of the final administrative order. Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-322(b)(1) (Supp. 1996). This time limi tation is ma ndatory and

jurisdicti onal. Bishop v. Tennessee Dep’t of Correctio n, 896 S.W. 2d 557, 558 (T enn. Ct. App. 1994) . Thus, in the absence of an equit able ground

similar t o those found in Tenn. R. C iv. P. 60 .02, the trial court mus t dismis s untimel y petitio ns for jud icial revie w.
Mr. Bryant at

tempts to justify hi s failure to filea timely petition for judicial review by asserting that he i s fun ctionally i lliterat e and that h e never r

eceived a copy of the notic e of proce dure or a copy of the Departm ent of Saf ety’s Augus t 12, 1994 forfeit

ure. T he recor d contains pr

oof that bot

h substantiates and refutes Mr. Bryant’s claims. We need not analyze this evidence in detail, however, because Mr. Br yant admits that he had

actual not

ice of the department’s forfeiture order by no later than early October 1994 when he and his new lawyer discovered the order in th e file obtai ned from Mr. Bry ant’s forme r lawyer. Mr. Bryant offers no explanati on for

his failur e to file a petition fo r judicial

review within sixt

y days after “discover

ing” the or

der. T hus, even i f

we give Mr. Brya

nt every benefit of the doubt, his pet ition for judici al review must still be

dismissed be cause it is untimely.
We affirm

th e judgment dismissi ng Mr. Bryant’s petition for judicial review and remand

the case for whatever further proceedings may be required. We also-4-

tax the co sts o f this appe al to Samu el Tyrone Bryant fo r which e xecution, if necessary, may issue.

_________ __ _________________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE CONCUR:

_________________

_______________ HENRY F. TODD, P.J., M.S.

_________________

_______________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE