### NUM BER 13-09- 0057 0-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 CORPUS CHRI ST I - 

## E D I N B U R G
SEVEN T HOU SA ND F OUR H UN DR ED SEVEN TY SEVEN D OLL A RS ($7 ,477.0 0) IN U.S. CU RR ENC Y, A pp ellan t,
v. TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On a p p ea l f ro m th e 14 8t h D is tr ic t C o u rt of N ue ces Co un ty , T exas . 

## 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 Y añ ez a n d G arza

Mem o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza In this for feiture case, appel lan t J oe E. C ast aneda a ppeal s t he tr ial co urt’ s d eci si on to g ra nt the Stat e’s moti on to st ri ke his peti ti on i n i nter v enti on. See T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 6 0

. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND On J a n u a r

y 2 2 , 2 0 0 9 , u n d e r c o v e r

n a r c o t i c s i n v e s t i g a t o rs fro m t h e C o r p u s C hr is tiT he r ecor d r ev eal ed t hat an anony m ous ci t i z en ca l l ed t he C or pus C hr i st i Pol i ce Depar t m ent t hat day 1 t o r epor t t hat t he r esi dent s ofa hom e l ocat ed a t 322 9 W ashi ngt on i n Cor pus Chr i st i , T exas, sol d m ar i huana

. T he d epar t m ent i m m edi at el y di spat ched under cov er nar cot i cs i nv est i gat or s t o sur v ey t he hom e. Based o n t hi s sur v ei l l ance, und er cov er i nv est i gat or s m ade f i v e separ at e ar r est s f or t he o ff ense ofdel i v er y of m ar i huana and sei z ed a ppr oxi m at el y t went y - ei ght pou nds ofm ar i huana , a ni ne- m i l l i m et er sem i
- aut om at i c pi st ol , and t he cash cu r r ency m ade t he su bj ect of t hi s opi ni on o n t hat day al one.

2 Pol ic e D epar

tment w er e c onduc ti ng su rv eil lan ce on a re si d e n ce as par t of an o ng oin g inv est ig ati on of mar ihu ana dr ug -t ra ff ic ki ng at that lo cat ion

. At approx imat ely 11:0 0 p.m. , 1 Stepha nie Gonz ale zl eft the resi dence , w av ed atthe undercov er i nv est ig ators, and ent ered the front p ass eng er

se at of a g re en T oy ota Camr

y parke d outsi de the home. The dr iv er of the car sub s e que ntly drove aw ay at a high rate o f spee d. T he u nde rcov er narcot ics inv est ig ators foll ow ed the Camry in the ir unmar ked pol ic e v ehi cl e. After commi tti ng se v eral traff icv iol ati ons, the dr iv er of the C amry

ev entuall y st o p p e d at a red traff icsi g nal ; t he inv est ig ators s topped direct ly behi nd th e C am ry

at the l ig ht. Gonz ale zthen ex it ed th e
v e h i c l e a n d a g g r e s s i v e l y a p p ro a c h e d t h e d r i v e r ’ s s i d e o f t h e u n ma r k e d p o l i c e v e h i c l e, y ell ing at the u ndercov er i nv est iga to rs. After Gonz ale zatt empted t o as saul t one of the undercov er

i nv est ig ators, another

i nv est ig ator

apprehended Gonz ale z . Dur ing her ar re st, the i nv est ig ators o bser v ed tw o transpa re nt ba g s c ont a in in g a total of $7,477.0 0 on the Camr y ’s frontpas seng er

se at w here Gon z ale zhad been sit ti n g
. The undercov er inv est ig ators d eter mined that thi s mone y represent ed proceed s from the sal e of
m a ri h u a n a , b a s e d o n t h e ir o b s e rva t io n s t h a td a y. On F ebr uar

y 20, 2009, the S tate filed forfeit ure proceed ing s t o s eiz e the $7,47 7.00 pursuantto chapt er 59 of t he Tex as Cod e of Cr imi nal Procedu re
. T EX
. C OD E C R IM
. P ROC
. A NN . art

. 5 9.01 (V er non Su pp. 2 009)

. In i ts ple adi ng s, the S tate ass erted t hat t he $7,477. 00 w as co n tr a b a nd s eiz ed “ pursuantto a l awful ar re st, l awful s ear ch[ ,] or l awful
search inc ide nt t o ar re st” and that “i t w as used or i ntended to be used in the c ommis si on of a felon y .” See $4 3 ,774. 00 i n U .S. Cur

re ncy v. Sta te , 2 6 6 S

. W

. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 2 (T e x.Jo na t ha n C ast aneda was on e of t he p er sons a r r est ed f or del i v er y of m ar i huana on Januar y 22, 2 2009; G onz al ez i s t he sa m e wom an under cov er i nv est i gat or s ar r est ed a f t er she assaul t ed a n i nv est i gat or on th a t d a y. 3 App .–T exarkana 20 08, pet. f iled) (“C hap ter 59 a uth oriz es the Sta te to pursu e the forfeiture of f unds that cons ti tute proceed s from i ll eg al dr ug traff ic ki ng .” ). On J uly 13, 2009, Cas taneda filed a pe ti ti on i n i nter v enti on i n w hic h he cl aimed to be the tr ue ow ner of the $ 7 , 477 .00 . In respon se, th e Sta te f iled an answer, objection , and mot ion to strike Castan eda ’s petition in interv ent ion. Casta ned a la ter am end ed h is orig inal pe tition in int er v enti on to i ncl ude an aff ida v it , w hic h ex pla ine d that he had loa ned t he money at is sue to his son , Jona tha n Castan eda , and h is so n’s gir lf riend, G onzalez, t o purch ase a v ehicle 2 and v ehi cl e i nsurance. On Se pte mb er 15, 2 009 , the trial court held a hea ring on the State’s m otion to strike Cas taneda’ s p eti ti o n i n i nter v enti on. At t he hear ing , C ast aneda reit erated the fact s s et forth in his af

f idavit. H e testif ied tha t he had lo ane d at least $10 ,00 0.0 0 to his son and his son’ s g ir lfri end on Janua ry 22, 2009, and t hat t he $7, 477.00 at i ss ue w as par t of the money tha t he ha d loan ed. T he loan , he explaine d, w as f rom m one y he ha d be en sa v ing from his
em ploymen t w ages at the Corpus Christi W aste W ate r Departm ent . Castane da a lso tes ti fied th at he had a w ri tten re cei pt fo r the l oan, but t hat i t had been mis pla ced

. Cas taneda did not prov ide any othe r document ati on or proof of his clai ms, and he did not pr e s e n t a n y othe r w itnesse s. Th e trial court granted the St ate ’s motio n to strike Cas taneda’ s p eti ti on i n i nter v enti on and thi s a ppeal foll ow ed. II. S TA NDA RD OF R E V I E W A ND A PPLI C A B LE L AW Tex as Rul e of Ci v il Procedu re 60 a ll ow s a par ty to automati cal lyi n te rv ene i n an
ex is ti ng ca use of acti on, “ subj ectto bei ng str ic ken out bythe cour t for suff ic ien t c ause on the mot ion of

any party .” T EX
. R. C IV
. P. 6 0. The in ter v enti on mus t be f ile d b e f o re the4

jud g ment is rendered. Fi rs t Al ief Bank v. White , 682 S.W .2d 2 51, 2 52 ( Tex . 198 4)

. Und er
ru le 6 0 , p e rs o n s o r e n t it ie s h a ve t h e ri gh tt o in t e rve n e if t h e y, o r a n y o t h e r p a rt y, co u ld h a ve b ro u gh t t h e s a m e a c t io n t h e m s e lve s , o r i f t h e y wo u ld h a ve b e e n a b le t o d e fe a tre c o ve ry,
or some par

t thereof, had the acti on been broug ht ag ain st them. Gua r. Fed. Sav. Ban k v. Hor ses hoe O

per ati ng C o. , 793 S.W .2d 652, 657 (Tex . 1990). The in terestas ser ted c an be leg al or

eq uit abl e. Id. A n intervenor doe s n ot have to see k perm ission f rom th e cou rt to i nter v ene; ra ther , t he party

opposi ng the in ter

v enti on bears t he burden of ch all eng ing the par ty ’s i ncl usi on i n the ca se w it h a mot ion to str ik e. Id. If a moti on to str ik e is filed , the tr ial cour t s houl d g iv e the i nter

v enor an o ppor

tuni ty to ex pla in and prov e hi s i nteresti n the su itbefore ru li ng on t he moti on to st ri ke. Griz z le v. Tex. C om m er

ce Bank , 38 S.W .3d 2 65, 2 73 ( Tex . App.–D all as 2001) , re v’ d on other gr ounds , 96 S.W .3d 2 40 ( Tex . 200 2) ; In r e Esta te of

York , 9 5 1 S

. W

. 2 d 1 2 2 , 1 2 6 (T e x. App .–Corp us Christi 1997 , w rit denied ). The intervenor mu st d e m o n s t rate a just iciable int er esti n the ca se. Se e , e .g ., I n r e Int ’ l Ma ri ne, L LC , No

. 1 3 -1 0 -0 0 1 9 5 -C V , 2 0 1 0 T e x. Ap p . LEX IS 3 957, at * *8- 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti M ay 25, 2010, or ig . proceed ing) (ci ti n g In re Uni

on C ar bide C or p. , 273 S.W .3d 152 , 154 -55 (Te x . 200 8) (orig . procee ding)). T he justiciable i nte rest mu st be “g reate r tha n a me re contin gent or remo te inte rest.” Law Off ic es of Windle T

ur ley , P. C. v. Ghi

asi nej ad , 109 S.W .3d 6 8, 70 ( Tex . Ap p.–F ort W orth 2003, no pet .) ; R og er

s v . Se ar le , 5 3 3 S .W .2d 4 40, 4 42 ( Tex . C iv . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1976, no w ri t) ; see als o R ober ts v. City of La Fe ri

a, No. 13- 00- 312- CV , 200 2 Tex . Ap p. LEX IS 6 175, at * *8- 9 (T e x. Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti Aug . 22, 2002, no p et.) ( not d esi g nated for publ ic ati on)

. The r ig ht t o i nter

v ene i s s ubj e ct t o wide di sc re ti on by the tr ial co urt i n j udg ing the suffici ency

of an oppo si ng par

ty 's m oti on to stri ke the peti ti on of the int er v enor
. Roge rs ,5

533 S. W .2d a t 442

. In t est ing the suffici ency of the fact s a ll eg ed by the peti ti oner

i n the peti ti on for int er

v enti on, t he facts so all eg ed shoul d be cons tr ued alo ng w it h the a ll eg ati ons of factse t outi n the pl eadi ng s o f the person w ho resi sts the peti ti on i n i nter ven ti on. Id. Ul ti matel y , t he tr ial co urt may dec ide to: “ (a ) tr

y the int er

v enti on c lai m; ( b) se v er the i n t e r v e n t i o n ; ( c ) o rd e r a s e p a r a t e t r i a l o n t h e i n t e r v e n t i o n i s s u e s ; o r ( d ) str ik e the intervention fo r go o d cau se.” Saldana v . Sa lda na , 7 9 1 S

. W

. 2 d 3 1 6 , 3 2 0 (T e x. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 1990, no w ri t) . The tr ial co urt abu ses i ts dis creti on i n s tr ik ing the ple a if : (1 ) th e in t e rve n o r co u ld h a ve b ro u gh t t h e s a m e a c t io n t h e m s e lve s , o r if t h e y wo u ld h a ve been ab le to de feat recov er y i f the ac ti on been broug ht ag ain st them; (2 ) the i nter v enti on
w il l not c ompli cat e the case b y an e x ces si v e mul ti pli cat ion of the i ss ues; and (3 ) the int er v enti on is ess enti al to protec t t he i nter v enor ’s i nterest

. Guar . F ed. S av. Bank , 793 S. W .2 d at65 7 (cit in g Inter -Con t’ l Cor p. v . Moody, 4 1 1 S

. W

. 2 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 9 (T e x. Ci v. App.–H oust on [1 st Di st. ] 196 3, w ri t ref’d n. r. e.) ); In re Esta te of York , 951 S.W .2d a t 126

. III
. D I S CUS S I ON At t he hear ing on the Stat e’s moti on to str ik e, Cas taneda sta ted that the $ 7,477. 00
s e ize d wa s p a rto f

a $ 1 0 , 0 0 0

. 0 0 lo a n h e h a d g ive n t o h is so n Jo n a t h a n a n d t o G o n za le z. These s tatement s w ere notsu ppor ted b y any documentati on ot her

than an a ff ida v it

. The aff ida v i tc o n t a i n e d s e l f- s e r v i n g s t a t e me n t s a s s e rt i n g C a s t a n e d a ’ s i n t e r e s ti n t h e s e i z ed proper ty but faile d to prov ide doc umentati on or othe r proof of this c la im

. C ast aneda pr esent ed no other

ev ide nce, su ch as the t est im o n y o f his so n or hi s s on’ s g ir lfri end, to subs tanti ate h is cl aims

. The Stat e’s ev ide nce inc lud ed tes ti mony by aff ida v it w hic h sta ted the follo w ing : (1 )
an a non y mo us t ip ster called th e Corpus Christi Police Dep artm entto repo rt that ce rtain homeow ners w ere s ell ing mar ihu ana f ro m t h eir resi dence ; ( 2) the pol ic e depar tment6

dis patc hed s ev eral pla in- cl oth e d n a rcoti cs i nv est ig ators t o the resi dence i n unmar ked
ve h ic le s t o su rve y t h e h o u s e f o r t h e d a y; (3 ) t h e su rve il la n c e le d t o t h e a rr e s t s o f f ive peopl e, i ncl udi ng Jo nathan, al l for th e del iv er y of mari huan a , a n d the sei z ure of
a p p rox ima tely tw ent y -eight poun ds of marihu ana and a nine-m illimete r semi-aut om atic pis tol ; ( 4) Gonz ale zw as seen lea v ing the aforementi oned ho use under su rv eilla nce; ( 5)
w hen G onz ale zw as ar re ste d for ass aul t, undercov er i nv est ig ators noti ced tw o transpa re nt b a gs co n ta in in g $ 7 ,4 7 7 .0 0 o n t h e p a ss e n ger ’s f ro n t se a t o f th e ca r whe re sh e w a s si tt in g; and ( 6) i nv est ig ators b eli ev ed th at t he money w as cont ra band fro m the sal e of mari huana. The tr ial co urt had broad d isc reti on to dete rmi ne w hether C ast aneda h ad a “j ust ic iab le int erest ” to j ust ify his p le a i n i nter

v enti on. See Rogers , 533 S.W .2d a t 442

. Af ter consid ering the plea dings, the testim ony at the h earing, and argumen ts of coun sel,
w e c oncl ude t hat t he tr ial co urt di d not abuse it s dis creti on in deter mini ng thatC ast aneda did not hav e a jus ti ci abl e int erest in the cas e that w as “g re ater than a mere c onti ng ent o r
remo te inte rest.” See Windle T ur ley, 109 S.W .3d at 70. W e overrule Castane da’s sole is sue. III
. C ONCL US I ON The ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt i s a ff ir med.

_________

_________

______ DORI CONTRERAS GARZA Jus ti ce Del iv er ed and filed the 12th day of Aug ust , 201 0.