### NUM BER 13-07- 0032 6-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
LOT6, NW

17 ' OF 5, BL OCK

5, POR T LA

VA CA OR IGINA L TOW NSIT E, (40 1 S . C OM M ERC E), A pp ellan t,
v . TH E STA

TE OF T EXAS, A pp ellee.
On ap pe al f rom th e 2 4th D istrict Co urt of C alh ou n Co un ty , T exas . 

## ME MOR A ND UM OP IN ION B efo re J u st ic es R o d rig u ez , G arza , a n d V el a M em o ra n d u m Op in io n b y J u st ic e Ga rza T his app eal arises f rom a civ il fo rfeiture procee ding inv olvi ng the seizure of a hou se owned by appellan t, Davi d Ste rling

. Ste rling app eals th e trial court’s grant ing of the St ate ’s supp lem ent al mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t and argues that : ( 1 ) t h e t rial court erred in g ra nti ng the moti on becau se there is ins uff ic ien t ev ide nce to suppo rtforfeit ure; an d ( 2) the2

forfeiture of hi s h ouse cons ti tutes a s econd puni shment in v iol ati on of the Ex ces si v e F ine s Cl ause of the Ei g hth A mendment t o the U nit ed St a te s Co nst it uti on. See U .S. C ON ST . am en d. V II I. W e affi r m. I. B A CKGRO UND The Stat e fil ed a noti ce of s eiz ure and i ntended forfeit ure of Ster li ng ’s hous e l ocat ed at 40 1 Sout h C ommerc e St re et i n P o rt L a v aca, Tex as. I n i ts forfeiture not ic e, t he St ate all eg ed th at S ter li ng ’s hous e w as cont raband bec ause Ster li ng had been i ndi cte d w it h
sev eral felony

counts of

unl awful del iv er

y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance. See T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481. 112( b) , ( c) (Ver non 200 3)

. Ster li ng ans w ered w it h a g eneral deni al. The S tate then filed a t ra dit ion al moti on for summar y j udg ment, ass erti ng thatthe hou se w as con traba nd b ecau se Ste rling p o ssessed controlled substa nces in th e ho use that w ere i ntended for future di str ibu ti on. The tr ial co urt g ra nted the S tate’ s mot ion for
summar y j udg ment. On ap p e a l , w e re v e rs e d t h e t r i a l c o u rt ’ s j u d g me n ta n d re ma n d e d fo r furth er proceed ing s. Ster

li ng v . St ate , 200 S.W .3d 842, 844 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, no pet .) (“ Ster

li ng I”)

. In Ster

li ng I , w e not ed th at: In this case, the ev ide nce of “u se” is s o meag er thatw e c annot conc eiv e of a pos ses si on case occ ur ri ng in a domest icse tti ng thatw oul d noti nv olv e the same “ use” sh ow n here. Und er the Stat e’s i nter pretati on of the l a w, any poss ess ion of dr ug s a t home is “ use” of the h ome und er the sta tute and subj ect s t he home to s eiz ure and forfeiture as co ntraband. T his rul e of la w wo u ld b e inordin ate ly

and indiscrimina tely broa d an d w ould ef fectively abrog ate t he statut e’s cl ear req uirements thatproper ty be “ used” or “inten ded to be used ” in the comm ission of one of the en um erate d felon ies. Id. On rem and , the S t a t e f iled a sup plem ent al mo tion for sum ma ry judgmen t, on ceSt er l i ng at t ached t o hi s m ot i on f or new t r i al an aff i dav i t execu t ed b y hi s br ot her , W i l l i am , st at i ng t hat 1 no r esponse was f i l ed t o t he St at e’ s supp l em ent al m ot i on fo r s um m ary j udgm ent beca use St er l i ng was in c a r c e r a te d a n d u n r e p r e s e n te d “ d u r in g th e p e r io d th a t t h e s u p p le m e n ta l m o tio n . . . w a s f ile d a n d a t t h e tim e i t was he ar d. ” However , at t he h ear i ng o n St er l i ng’ s m ot i on f or new t r i al , W i l l i am adm i t t ed t hat he and St er l i ng wer e awar e oft he St at e’ s suppl em ent al m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent and t hat W i l l i am was pr esent at t he cour t house on t he d ay t he su m m ar y j udgm ent hea r i ng was t o be hea r d, but nei t her chose t o f i l e a r esponse t o t he St at e’ s m ot i on.

O n Decem ber 20, 200 6, St er l i ng f i l ed a pr o se m ot i on f or l eav e, r equest i ng t hat t he t r i al cour t al l ow hi m t o f i l e an unt i m el y re sponse t o t he St at e’ s suppl em ent al m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent

. T he r ecor d do es no t de m on s t rat e t ha t t he t ri al co urt rul ed on S t erl i ng ’ s pro s e m oti on fo r l ea ve; h ow eve r, b ec au s e t he t ri al co urt gr ant ed t he St at e’ s suppl em ent al m ot i on f or sum m ar y j udgm ent wi t hout t he benef i t of a r esponse, t he t ri al c o u rt o s te n s i b l y d e n i e d S te rli n g ’ s m o ti o n fo r l e a v e . 3 ag ain co ntendi ng thatthe house w as cont ra band be caus e St er li ng pos ses sed cont ro ll ed subs tanc es in the h ouse and int ended to del iv er them. Ster li ng did not file a respon se to the S tate’ s s uppl emental moti on for summar y j udg ment. T h e t rial c our t ag ain g ra nted 1 Stat e’s moti on for summar y j udg ment, all ow ing the Stat e to sei z e Ster li ng ’s house

. Ste rl ing filed a moti on for new tr ial , arg uin g thatthi s C our t had al re ady

resol v ed th is i ss ue. After a hear ing , t he tr ial co urt den ied Ste rl ing ’s moti on. This appeal foll ow ed. II. S TA NDA RD OF R EVI EW A . Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment The propr iety

of a s ummary

j udg ment i s a q uest ion of law ; t herefore, an appe ll ate
cour t rev iews de nov o the tri al cour t' s g ra nti ng of

su mmary

j udg ment. Natividad v. Alexsis, Inc. , 875 S.W .2d 6 95, 6 99 ( Tex . 199 4)

. To be entit led to a tradi ti onal su mmary j udg ment, the movant n eed s to establish its en titlem entto sum ma ry judgmen t on th e issues expressly prese nte d to th e trial court by conclusiv ely esta blishing a ll esse ntial elem ent s o f its cause of a ct io n o r d e f e n se as a matte r of law

. T EX . R. C IV . P. 166 a(c); Sw. Elec. Power Co. v. Gr ant , 73 S.W .3d 2 11, 2 15 ( Tex . 200 2) ; Johns on Cou nty Sher if f' s Poss e, Inc. v. Endsley, 926 S.W .2d 284 , 285 (Tex. 1996 ).4

T he n on-m ovant is n ot required to f ile a respon se to de feata mo tion for sum ma ry jud g ment i f def ic ien ci es in th e m ov ant' s o w n proof or leg al theor ies defeat i ts ri g ht t o jud g ment as a mat ter

of law

. Me dlo ck

v. C om m 'n for

Lawyer D is ci pli ne , 24 S.W .3d 8 65, 870 ( Tex . Ap p.–Tex ar kana 2000, no pet .)

. How ev er , i f th e r e sp ondent fails to file a re spons e, t he onl y

g ro und for re vers a l he or sh e may

rais e on appeal i s t he l eg al ins uff ic ien cy

of the mov ant' s s ummary j udg ment moti on or

proof. Medlock , 24 S.W .3d a t 870; Pierson v. S MS Fin. II, L.L .C. , 959 S.W .2d 343, 348 (Tex

. App.–Tex ar kana 1998, no pet .). It is w ell se ttl ed th at a tr ial co urt maynot g ra nt a summar y j udg ment by

default ; t hat is , t he c our

t may not g ra nt a summar

y jud g ment becau se the n on- mov ant fai led to re spond to t he moti on w h e n t h e mov ant' s s ummary j udg ment proof is l eg all y i nsuffici ent. Cit

y o f Hou sto n v

. Clear Cre e k Basi

n Aut h. , 589 S.W .2d 671 , 678 (Tex. 1979 ); Swe dlun d v. Banner , 970 S.W .2d 1 07, 1 09- 10 ( Tex . A p p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1998, pet. deni ed)

. The
mo v antmuststill e s t a b li s h h is or her entitlem entto sum ma ry judgmen t by conclu siv ely p ro vin g a ll e s s e n t ia l e le m e n t s o f h is o r h e r c a u s e o f

a c t io n o r d e fe n s e a s a m a t t e r o f la w. Clear Cre ek Basi

n Aut h. , 589 S.W .2d a t 678

. B. L egal Su ff icien cy In rev iew ing the leg al suffi cie n cy of ev ide nce, w e c re ditev ide nce suppo rt ing the judgme nt if

reason able ju rors co uld, and d isregard co ntrary evidence u nless reaso nab le jurors c oul d not

. City of K eller v. Wils on , 168 S.W .3d 802 , 827 (Te x . 200 5); Villagomez v. Rockwood Spe cialties, In c. , 210 S.W .3d 7 20, 7 48 ( Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 2006, pet. deni ed)

. W e w il l sus tai n a l eg al suffici ency ch all eng e onl y

i f: ( 1) there i s a co mplet e abse nce of evidence of a v ital fact; (2) the court is barred by rules of law o r o f ev iden ceW e c o n s tr u e S te r lin g ’s f ir s t t w o is s u e s o n a p p e a l a s le g a l s u ff ic ie n c y c h a lle n g e s to th e tr ia l c o u r t’s 2 g ra n ti n g o f th e S ta te ’ s s u p p l e m e n ta l m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t. See Medl ock v. C om m ' n f or Lawyer D isci pline , 2 4 S .W .3 d 8 6 5 , 8 7 0 ( T e x . A p p .– T e x a r k a n a 2 0 0 0 , n o p e t. ) ( h o ld in g t h a t a p p e lla n t m a y r a is e o n ly a l e g a l s u ff i c i e n c y c h a l l e n g e w h e n h e fa i l s to fi l e a re s p o n s e to a m o ti o n fo r s u m m a ry j u d g m e n t). 5 f rom g iv ing w eight to the only evidence of fered to prov e a v ital fact; (3) t h e e vid ence off ered to prov e a v it al fact i s n o more tha n a mere sc int il la; or (4 ) the ev ide nce est abl is hes
conc lus iv ely

the oppos it e o f

a vital fact. City of K

eller , 168 S.W .3d a t 810

. Mo re than a sc int il la of ev ide nce ex is ts, and the e v ide nce is leg all y suff ic ien t, if the ev ide nce furni shes
som e reaso nab le basis for dif fering conclusion s byreason able mind s abo ut a vital fa ct's
ex is tenc e. Lee L e w

is Constr

. C o. v . Har ri son , 70 S. W .3d 778 , 782 -83 (Te x . 200 1). How ev er , "w hen t he ev ide nce off ered to prov e a v it al fact is so w eak as to do no more tha n create a me re surmise o r suspicion of its existence , the e v iden ce is no mo re than a scintilla and, in leg al eff ect , i s n o ev ide nce. " Ford Motor C o. v . Ridg way , 135 S.W .3d 5 98, 6 01 (T e x. 20 0 4 ) (ci ti n g Kind red v. Con/

Chem, Inc. , 650 S.W .2d 61, 63 (Tex. 1983 )). III . A N AL Y S IS A . Sterling’s House A s Contraband By hi s first tw o i ss ues, Ste rl ing co n tends thatthere i s i nsuffici ent e v ide nce, or altern atively

no evidence , esta blishing thath e used h is h ouse o r inte nde d to use h is house to eff ect uate the unl awful del iv er y of cont ro ll ed s ubst ances . C onv ersel y , t he St ate a rg ues 2 that Ster li ng ’s hous e i s s u b j e ct to for feiture bec ause the e v ide nce, i ncl udi ng Ste rl ing ’s g uil ty ple as and j udi ci al confess ion s, est abl is hes that the house w as cont ra band an d, t herefore, subj ectto forfeiture. 1. A pp licab le L aw "Proper ty thati s contraband i s s ubj ectto sei z ure and forfeiture . . . ." T EX . C ODE6

C R IM . P ROC . A NN . a rt . 5 9 .0 2 (a ) (V e rn o n 20 0 6 ). For fe it u re is a n i n r e m c ivil p ro ce e d in g. State v . Si lv er Chevr ole t Pickup , 140 S.W .3d 6 91, 6 92 ( Tex . 200 4) ; $191,45 2.00 v. State , 827 S.W .2d 430 , 433 (Tex. App. –Cor p u s C hristi 1992 , w rit denied ). In a forfeiture proceed ing , t he St ate mus t prove b y a preponderance of the ev ide nce that the p ro per ty sei z ed i s c ontraband a nd, t herefore, that the p ro per ty is su bje ct to forfeiture. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 59.02( a) ; see als o 1.7 0 Acre s v . St ate , 935 S.W .2d 4 80, 4 86 (Tex . Ap p .– Be a u m o nt 19 96, n o w ri t) ; $162,95 0.00 in Cur re ncy of U. S. v

. St ate , 911 S.W .2d 528, 52 9 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 199 5, w ri t den ied ). "C ontraband" i s d efined as proper ty of any natu re , i ncl udi ng real , personal , tang ibl e, or int ang ibl e proper ty thati s u sed
or i ntended to be us ed i n the co mmiss ion of any felo n y u nder

the Tex as Con troll ed Subs tanc es Act

. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . art. 59.01 (2)(B)(i ) (Verno n Sup p. 20 08). In a forfeiture proc eedi ng , the State is req uired to sho w probabl e c ause for s eiz ing the p ro per

ty

. $56,700

i n U .S. Cur

re ncy v. Sta te , 730 S.W .2d 659 , 661 (Tex. 1987 ); $9,050. 00 in U.S. C ur

re ncy v. Sta te , 874 S.W .2d 1 58, 1 61 ( Tex . Ap p.–H oust on [1 4th D is t.] 1994, w ri t deni ed)

. This means that the S tate must est abl is h a s ubst anti al conne cti on or nex us betw een t he s eiz ed proper ty and the d efined c ri minal ac ti v ity . 1.70 Acr es , 935 S

. W .2 d at48 6 (cit in g $56 ,70 0 in U.S. Currency , 730 S.W .2d a t 661 ; $ 9 , 0 50 i n U .S. Currency , 874 S.W .2d a t 161 ). Therefore, in prov ing its cas e by a preponderance of the
ev ide nce, the Stat e mustprov e tha t it w as more re asona bly probabl e tha n notthatthe sei z ed proper

ty w as eit her

i ntended for u se in, or der iv ed from, a v iol ati on of one o f the
o ffe n s e s e n u me ra t e d i n t h e fo r fe i t u r e s t atute

. Id. ; Spur s v . St ate , 850 S.W .2d 6 11, 6 14 (Tex . Ap p.–Ty ler

1993, w ri t den ied ) (n oti ng thatt h e S ta te ca n rely on c ircums tanti al
ev ide nce in sat is fyi ng i ts burden of proof in a forfeit ure c ase)

.7

W e al so note that w e empl oy r ule s of s tr ic t cons tr uct ion ag ain st forfeiture w hen t he forfeiture i s t o the sov ereig n and i s c re ated by st atute

. 197 6 Harley Davidson Motorcycle
v. State , 106 S.W .3d 398, 402 (Tex

. App.–C or pus Chr is ti 2003, no pet .) ; State v . Lot 10, Pi ne Haven Est

ates , 900 S.W .2d 400 , 402 (Tex. App. –T exarkana 19 95, no w rit). 2. Disc ussi on T he St ate atta ched the followi ng items t o its supplem ent al mo tion for sum ma ry judgme nt: ( 1) an af

f idavit executed by an assistant district atto rney; ( 2) tw o prob able cause af f idavits, one execute d by D erek W alton , a pea ce of f icer w ith the Port Lavaca Po lice Dep artment, and another ex ecut ed by

Jo hnny Amador , an inv est ig ator w it h the C alh oun Co u n t y S h e ri f

f ’s O f f ic e ; (3 ) a se a rc h wa r r a n te x e c u t e d b y a ju s t ic e o f t h e p e a c e ; (4 ) two ind ic tmen t s a g a i n s tS t e r l i n g ; a n d ( 5 ) tw o g u i l t y p l e a s e n t e r e d b y

S t e r l i n g fo r

u n l a wful del iv er y of cont ro ll ed s ubst ances . In par ti cul ar , the probabl e caus e aff ida v itex ecut ed by W alt on s tated that : (1 ) Ster li ng l iv ed at401 South Commerce Street i n Por t Lav aca, Tex as; ( 2) pow der

co cai ne w as bei ng so ld at the house; and (3) Sterl ing and his brother had bee n prev iou sl y

ar re ste d tw enty -tw o times w it h eig ht of the ar re sts bei ng for d ang erous drugs. Based on this af f idavit, t h e t ri a l court au tho riz ed a search w arrant o f Sterling’s house

. W hile sea rching Sterling’s hou se, po lice foun d cocain e and hero in on the prem ises,
w hic h resul ted i n St er li ng being indi cte d bya Cal houn County g ra nd j ur

y w it h one countof del iv er y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, co cai ne, o f mo re t h a n one g ra m but les s t han four g ra ms ( “C ount 1") , see T EX . H E A L TH & S A F E T Y C OD E A NN . § 481. 112( c) , and one countof delivery of a contro lled sub stan ce, hero in, in the a mo unto f le ss t han one g ram (“Coun t 2"). See i d. § 481. 112( b)

. The fi rst i n d ictment st ated that the e v ents transpi re d on or aboutI n hi s aff i dav i t , Am adorn oted tha t t he co nf i dent i al i nf or m ant had bee n f ound t o be r el i abl e an d 3 cr edi bl e an d t hat pr ev i ous i nf or m at i on p r ov i ded by t he co nf i dent i al i nf or m at i on “ was f ound t o be t r ue a nd a c c u ra te e a c h ti m e .” 8 Ma y 27, 2004. On Ju n e 29 , 2 0 0 4 , A m a d o r f ile d a se co n d pro b a b le ca u se af f id a vit d e ta ili n g a subs eq uent dr ug transacti on occ ur ri ng at Ster li ng ’s house

. In his aff ida v it , Amado r noted th e fo llo wing: [The c onfidenti al infor mant] has been at Dav id Ster li ng ’s resi dence w it hin the past72 h ours a nd has w it ness ed th e c ocai ne and heroin i n thi s resi dence at 401 S. C ommerc e and w it ness ed D av id Bauer St e rling w ho di d the n and there k now ing ly

pos ses [s] a c ontrolle d su bst ance, to w it : Coc ain e and Heroin

. [The c onfident ial i nformant] st ated Dav id Bauer Ste rl ing i s p oss ess ing and traff ic ki ng C ocai ne and Heroin from this resi dence in Por t Lav aca[ ,] Cal houn Cou nty , Tex as. [ ] 3 A s econd i ndi ctmentw as then is sued for th e offense of deli v er y of a c ontroll ed s ubst ance, heroin , of more tha n one g ra m but les s t h an four g ra ms oc cur ri ng on J une 29, 2004 (“ Cou nt 3")

. See i

d. § 481 .11 2(c). Pursuantto tw o plea ag re ements w it h the State, Ster li ng pleaded g uil ty to Cou nt 2 and Count3, adm itting that he had inten ded to deliver a controlle d s u b stan ce, na me ly heroin , on tw o s eparate o cc asi ons. The tria l cour t ac cept ed th e ter ms of the ple a ag re ements , and Ste rl ing w as subs eq uentl y se ntenc ed. Beca use the S tate has prov ide d
ev ide nce demonst ra ti ng thatSte rl ing st ored and sol d c ontroll ed s ubst ances in his hous e, and bec ause Ster li ng j udi ci all y co nfessed to eng ag ing in suc h ac ti v it ies , w e c oncl ude t hat the State ’s ev iden ce is legally suf f icient to esta blish tha t Ste rling used or intend ed to use his hous e to aid i n the unl awful del iv er y of controll ed subst ances , thus suppor ti ng a find ing9

that the house w as cont ra band s ubj ectto forfeiture. See T EX . C OD E C R IM . P ROC . A NN . ar t. 59.02( a) ; see als o Cit

y o f Ke ller

, 168 S.W .3d a t 810 ; Lot 39, S ect ion C, N. H

il ls Subdi vi si on
v. State , 85 S.W .3d 4 29, 4 32 ( Tex . Ap p.–Eas tl and 200 2, pe t. deni ed) ( hol din g that homest eads are not e x empt from the for feiture s tatut es) ; 1.70 Acr es , 935 S.W .2d a t 486 ; Spu rs , 850 S.W .2d a t 614 ; Ex parte Cam ara , 893 S.W .2d 5 53, 5 59 (Tex . Ap p.–C or pus Chr is ti 1994, w ri t denied) (aff ir ming the tr ial court ’s chara cte ri z ati on of a mobi le home as cont ra band an d, t herefore, subj ect ing i t t o forfeiture)

. W e furt her co ncl ude t hat t he St ate has est abl is hed it s enti tl ement to s ummary j udg ment as a mat ter

of law

. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 166 a(c); se e al

so Sw. Elec. Power

C o. , 73 S.W .3d a t 215 ; Ends ley, 926 S.W .2d a t 285

. Accordin gly , w e overrule Sterling’s f irst tw o issues on app eal. B. Forfeiture A

s a Se cond Punishme nt A nd The Eighth A mendment In hi s t hird i ss ue, S ter ling ass erts that the for feiture of hi s h ouse cons ti tutes an imper mis si ble se cond puni shmentand ex ces si v e fine. See U .S. C ON ST . a m e n d . VIII. How ev er , w e do not r e a ch thi s i ss ue bec ause Ster li ng fail ed to fil e a respon se to t he Stat e’s su mmary

j udg ment moti on and becau se his thi rd is sue does not cons ti tute a l eg al
su ff ic ien cy

ch all eng e. See Clea r Cr eek Basi n Aut h. , 5 8 9 S

. W

. 2 d a t6 7 8 ( “ [ T] h e n onmov ant n eeds no ans w er or re spons e to the moti on to c ontend on appe al that the g ro unds
ex press ly

present ed to the tr ial co urt by the mov ant’ s m o ti on are i nsuffici ent as a m atter of l aw t o su p p o rt s u m m a ry ju d gm e n t

. T h e n o n -m o va n t , h o we ve r, m a y n o tra is e a n y other is sues as grou n ds for rev ersal

. Und er the new r ule , t he non- mov ant may not urg e on a p p e a l a s re a s o n fo r r e ve rs a l o f t h e su m m a ry j u d gm e n ta n y a n d e ve ry new g ro und that he can th ink of , nor can he resurrect ground s thathe aba ndo ned a t the hea ring.”) (emp hasis in or ig ina l) ; see also Medlo ck , 24 S.W .3d a t 870 ; Pier son , 959 S.W .2d a t 348 ; Mencha ca10

v. Mencha ca , 6 7 9 S

. W

. 2 d 1 7 6 , 1 7 7 -7 8 ( T e x . A p p . – E l P a s o 1 9 8 4 , n o wri t ). Ac c o rd in gl y, w e ov er ru le Ster li ng ’s thi rd i ss ue. IV. C ONCL US I ON Hav ing ov er ru led al l of Ster li ng ’s i ss ues on appe al, w e aff ir m the ju dg ment of the tr ial co urt.

_________ _________

_____ DO RI C ON TRERAS G AR ZA, J u s t i c e Me moran dum Opi nio n del iv ered and filed thi s t he 25t h day

of June, 2009.