## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH
NO. 2- 07 - 02 1- CV NO. 2 - 0 7 - 0 2 3 - CV $1, 943. 76 I N U NI TE D STATES APPE L L AN T C U R R E N C Y ; T H IR T Y O N E (3 1 ) “8 L I N ER” M A C H I N ES; TW ELVE ( 12) ARI ZOLA REST AU RAN T GI F T CARDS ; NI NE TE E N ( 19 ) QUI CK TRI P G I FT CA RD S; SI X TY N I N E ( 69) W AL- M ART SHO PP I NG CA RDS; O N E AR M I TA N FO G LI O G I U SEPPE

. 2 5 P I S T OLAN D A M M UNI T I ON; ONE NOR I NC O M ODE L5 4 P I S T OL AND AMM UNI T I ON; ONE ( 1 ) HP PA V I LLI O N 68 30 ; O N E M A X ELL 3. 5 F L O PP Y DI SK; M I SCEL L AN EOUS NOT E B OOK S , CH E CK B OOK S , AN D ENUM ERATE D I TE M S V . TH E STA TE O F TEXA S A PPELL EE

----- ----- -- F R OM CR I M I NALDI S T R I CT CO UR T NO. 3 AN D T HE 396TH DI STRI CT CO URT O F TARRA NT CO UN TY

----- ----- --1 ... S ee Te x. R. App . P. 47. 4.
2 ... Ha rdyv. S tate , 1 0 2 S .W .3 d 1 2 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ). 2 ----- ----- -- 

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- A ppe l l antBi l l y Jo e Far r el l , Jr . app ea l s f r om t he t r i al co urt ’ s det er m i nat i on
w i t h r espectt o hi s pr oper t y sei zed unde r a sear ch w ar r ant . I n t hr ee i ssues, A ppe l l antar gue s th a t th e m ac hi nes an d ot herpr ope r t y s ei z ed w er e n ot gam bl i ng de vi ce s as de f i ned by Texa s Pena l C ode se ct i on 47. 01( 4) ( B) , t hatt he
r et r oac t i ve app l i ca t i on oft he Supr em e CourtofTexa s’ s dec i si on i n Hardyv. S tate 2i s an i m pro p e r a p p li cat i on of l aw , and t hatt he t r i al cour tcom m i t t ed
r ever si bl e er r orby f ai l i ng t o r et ur n t he pr oper t y. Because w e hol d t hatt he t r i al
c o u rt d i d n o t e rr b yd e te rm i n i n g th a t th e “ e i g h t l i n e rs ” a t i s s u e h e re a re gam bl i ng dev i ces, w e af f i r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m ent s. I n 200 2, A ppe l l ant ow ned and ope r at ed a g am i ng bu si nes s. As pa r tof h i s b u s i n e s s , A p p e l l a n t o w n e d “ e i g h t l i n e r” g a m i n g m a c h i n e s . A fte r a successf ul pl ay on one of t he m achi nes, a pl ayerw oul d be aw ar ded po i nt s t hat coul d be r edeem ed f or r est aur antorr et ai l gi f tcar ds orf orcr edi tf orf ur t herpl ay on t h e m a c h i n e s . I n Ju l y 2002, FortW ort h pol i ce r ai ded t he bus i nes s and3 ... T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (b ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 5 ).
4 ... See Grune wald v. Techni bi ltCor p. , 931 S . W . 2d 593, 597 ( Tex. A pp. — D al l as 19 96 , w r i t deni ed) ( hol di ng t hat because t he cour tl acked subj ect m a tte r j u ri s d i c ti o n , i t h a d n o a u th o ri tyo th e r th a n to d i s m i s s th e a p p e a l ); Protestants v. A m . Pub s, I nc. , 78 7 S . W . 2d 11 1, 11 3 ( Tex . A pp. — H oust on [ 1st D i st . ] 19 90 , w r i tdeni ed) ( st at i ng t hat a cour t m ust di sm i ss a case i fi tbecom es a p p a re n t th a t th e c o u rt h a s n o a u th o ri tyto a d j u d i c a te i t). 3 se i z ed t he m ac hi nes ( as w el l as ot heri t em s) pur su antt o a s ea r ch w ar r ant . The pol i ce al so s ea r che d, pur su antt o a s ea r ch w arran t, th e hom e o fone oft he gam i ng r oom ’ s em pl oyees. The St at e b r oughta gam bl i ng pr om ot i on c har ge a g a i ns tA ppe l l antbut l a ter d i sm i ss e d i t. A p p e l l a n t t h e n m o v e d for the rel e a se o f t h e se i ze d p rop e rt y und er ar t i cl e 18 . 18 of t he code ofcr i m i nal pr ocedu r e. 3The pr es i di ng j udge of t he 3 96 t h D i st r i ctC our thear d t he m ot i on w hi l e si t t i ng as th e 3 9 6 th D i st r i ct Judg e and as t he j udg e fo r C rim in a l D i st r i ctC our tN um berTh r ee and deni ed
r el i ef , af t erw hi ch A ppel l antbr oug htt hese appeal s. I n i t s br i ef , t he S t at e ar gues t hatt hi s cour t does not have j ur i sdi ct i on ov er t hi s app ea l . Bec aus e w e m ay notr ea ch t he m er i t s oft he ca se i fw e d o not h a v e j u ri sd i c ti o n , w e m u st a d d res s th i s a rgu m e n t. 4 A r t i cl e 18 . 18 ( b) or der s m agi st r at es t o t ake cert ai n act i ons w i t h r espect t o c onf i sc at ed pr ope r t y, an d i t nei t her exp r es sl y pr ovi des f ornorab r oga t es t he5 ... S ee T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (b ).
6 ... Hardy , 102 S. W . 3d a t126– 27.
7 ... S ee T e x . C i v . P ra c . & R e m . C o d e A n n . § 5 1 .0 1 2 (V e rn o n 2 0 0 8 ).
8 ... S ee Te x. Con s t . a r t . V, § 8.
9 ... S tate v. D ugar, 5 5 3 S .W .2 d 1 0 2 , 1 0 5 (T e x . 1 9 7 7 ). 4 r i ght ofappeal f r om m agi st er i al det er m i nat i ons und ert hatart i cl e. 5 A fo rfe i tu re pr oceedi ng i s i n r em and i s ci vi l i n nat ur e. 6W e h a v e ju r is d ic t io n o v e ra p p e a ls i n ci vi l m at t er s ar i si ng f r om di st r i ctcour t s. 7 Butt he St at e a r gue s t hatw e d o not hav e j ur i sd i ct i on ove r t hi s ci vi l m at t erbe ca us e t he di st r i ctco urtw as ac t i ng a s a ma g i s t r a t e a n d a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s d o n o t h a v e j u r i s d i c t i on ov er de t e r m i na t i on s b y m a gi s t r a t e s u nd e ra r t i c l e 18. 18. W e d i sa gr ee . Undert he Texa s C ons t i t u ti o n , d i st r i ctco urt s hav e j ur i sdi ct i on ov erf or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ngs. 8 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r to fT e x a s h a s h e ld t hat because t he l egi sl at ur e canno t t ake aw ay t he j ur i sdi ct i on gi ven t o a di st r i ct
c o u r tb y t h e c o n s t it u t io n , “ t h e m o s t t h a tt h e L e g is la t u r e c o u ld c o n s t it u t io n a lly
ac com pl i sh i n [ a] r t i cl e 18. 18( b)
- ( f ) [ ] w as t o gr antco n c ur r entj ur i sd i ct i on t o a c o u rt . . . th a t w a s n o t a l s o a d i s tri c t c o u r t.” 9Thus , art i cl e 18. 18 al l ow s f or cour ts i n addi t i on t o di st r i ctcour t s t o pr esi de overf or f ei t ur e pr oceedi ngs. Beca us e t he di st r i ctco urtha d j u ri sd i ct i on ov ert he f or f ei t ur e p r oce edi ngs by10 ... S ee Te x. Con s t . a r t . V, § 8.
11 ... S eeT e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (b )– (f); S ta teexre l. Hol m es v. Sal

i nas , 784 S . W . 2d 421, 424 (T e x . C r i m . A pp. 1990 ) ( or i g. pr oce edi ng) ( hol di ng no j ur i sd i ct i ona l de f ec tan d t hatdi st r i ct cou r t hel d pos i t i on o fm a g is t r a t e “ s o le lyt h r o u g h h is o f f i c e o f d is t r ic tju d g e ” a n d t h e r e f o r e h is
“ a u t h o r it yt o a c tin t h e c a p a c it yo f m a g i s t r a t e [w a s ] d e p e n d e n tu p o n h is o ffice .”

12 ... S ee Te x. Ci v. Pr a c . & Rem . Cod e Ann . § 51 . 012; se e al so Brown v. Bar low , 685 S . W . 2d 406, 407 ( Tex. A pp. — San Ant oni o 1985, no w r i t ) ( not i ng t hatt he S upr em e C our tofTexas has i m pl i ci t l y hel d t hatr ul i ngs by m agi st r at es u n d e r a rti c l e 1 8 .1 8 a re a p p e a l a b l e ).

13 ... S ee Te x. Cod e Cr i m . Pr oc . Ann. a r t . 18. 18( b) ( Ver no n Sup p. 2008 ) (pro v i d i n g for the forfeit u re o f an yse i ze d “g a m b l i n g d e v i c e o r eq u i p m e n t, al t er ed gam bl i ng e q u ipm entorgam bl i ng par apher nal i a, gam bl i ng pr oceeds, pr o h i b i t e d we a p o n , o b s c e n e d e v i c e o rma t e r i a l , c h i l d p o r n o g r a p h y , s c a n n i ng devi ce orr e- encod er , cr i m i nal i nst r um ent , ordog- f i ghti n g equi pm ent ” unl ess 5 v i rt u e o f t h e co n sti tu ti o n a l p o w e rs g ran ted to d i stri c t co u rt s 10o r th e s ta tu to ry pow er s gr ant ed t o cour t s act i ng as m agi st r at es, 11 w e h a v e ju r is d ic t io n o v e rt h is
a p p e a l. 12W e over r ul e t he S t at e’ s j ur i sdi ct i onal chal l enge. W e n ow t ur n t o t he m er i t s oft he app ea l . In A p p e l l a n t ’ s f i r sti ss ue, he
ar gues t hatt he m achi nes and ot her pr oper t y sei zed w er e notgam bl i ng dev i ces a s th a t te rm i s d e fi n e d b y T e x a s P e n a l C o d e s e c ti o n 4 7 .0 1 (4 )(B ). I n A p p e l l a n t’s br i ef , how eve r , he l i m i t s hi s ar gum entt o e r r oras t o t he f or f ei t ur e o fhi s “e i ght l i ner ” m achi nes. A p p el l antm akes no ar gum entas t o w hy t he ot heri t em s sei zed ar e notgam bl i ng dev i ces ornot o th e rw is e subj ectt o f or f ei t ur e under
a r t i c l e 18. 18. 13 W e t her ef or e af f i r m t he t r i al cour t ’ s j udg m ent s as t o t he ot herc a u s e i s s h o w n w h yi t s h o u l d n o t b e fo rfe i te d ).
14 ... S ee Pat

Bak er Co. , I nc. v. W

i l so n , 971 S. W . 2d 447, 450 ( Te x. 1998 ) ( “I ti s axi om at i c t hatan ap pel l at e c ourtca nnotr eve r se a t r i al co urt ’ s j udgm ent a b s e n t p ro p e rl ya s s i g n e d e rro r.” ).

15 ... T e x . C o d e C ri m . P ro c . A n n . a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (a ).
16 ... Id. a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (b ).
17 ... Id. a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (f).
18 ... Id. a rt. 1 8 .1 8 (g )(2 ). 6 p ro p e rtys e i z e d a n d l i m i t o u r a n a l y s i s o f h i s i s s u e s to th e “ e i g h t l i n e rs .” 14 A r t i cl e 18. 18 pr ovi des t hat af t era per so n i s con vi ct ed f orpos se ss i on of
a gam bl i ng devi ce, “t he cour t ent er i ng t he j udg m ent of convi ct i on shal l o r der th a t th e . . . d e v i c e . . . b e d e s tro y e d o r fo rfe i te d to th e s ta te .” 15Buti fno pr os ec ut i on orco nvi ct i on r es ul t s f r om t he se i z ur e, “t he m agi st r at e t o w hom t he
r et ur n w as m ade sh al l not i f y i n w r i t i ng t he per so n f ound i n pos se ss i on oft he al l ege d ga m bl i ng de vi ce . . . t o sh ow ca us e w hy t he pr ope r t y s ei z ed sh oul d not b e d e s tro y e d .” 16 I f t he pe r s on a pp e a r s t o s ho w c a us e , t he m a gi s t r a t e m us t c ond u c t a hear i ng, but“[ u] nl ess t he per son pr oves by a pr epon der ance oft he evi dence t hatt he pr oper t y . . . i s not. . . [ a] gam bl i ng devi ce . . . and t hat he i s ent i t l ed t o p o s s e s s i o n , th e m a g i s tra te s h a l l d i s p o s e o f th e p ro p e rty .” 17T h e a r t ic le i ncor por at es t he penal code def i ni t i on of gam bl i ng dev i ce. 1819 ... T e x . P e n a l C o d e A n n . § 4 7 .0 1 (4 ) (V e rn o n 2 0 0 3 ).
20 ... Id. § 4 7 .0 1 (4 )(B ) (e m p h a s i s a d d e d ). 7 Pena l co de se ct i on 47. 01 def i nes t he t er m “ gam bl i ng d evi ce ” as “ any e l e c tro n i c , e l e c tro m e c h a n i c a l , o r m e c h a n i c a l c o n tri v a n c e . . . th a t fo r a con si der at i on a f f or ds t he pl aye r an opport uni t y t o obt ai n a nyt hi ng ofva l ue, t he
aw ar d ofw hi ch i s det er m i ned s ol el y orpa r t i al l y bych an c e , ev en t hough
ac com pan i ed by s om e s ki l l , w het herornott he pr i z e i s aut om at i ca l l y pai d byt he
c o n tri v a n c e .” 19 Th e def i ni t i on expr essl y excl udes devi ces t hat w oul d ot her w i se f al l w i t hi n t he st at ut or y def i ni t i on i f t hey r ew ar d pl ayer s “ ex clusivelyw i th
nonc as h m er cha ndi se pr i z es , t oys , ornov el t i es , ora r epr e s e n ta t i on ofva l ue re d e e m a b l e f o r th o s e i te m s ,” w h e re th e n o n c a s h p ri z e s h a v e a v a l u e u n d e r a c e rt a i n am o u n t. 20No one d i sp ut es t hat t he “e i ghtl i ner s” ati ss ue her e m ee tt he g e n e r a l d e f in it io n o f“ g a m b lin g d e v ic e .” B u t A p p e lla n t a r g u e s t h a ta tt h e t im e t he dev i ce s w er e s ei z ed, t heyca m e w i t hi n t he exc ept i on un ders ec t i on 47. 01( 4) ( B) , i n t hatpl aye r s w er e r ew ar ded w i t h nonc as h m er cha ndi se , an d no p l a y e r w a s a w a rd e d a p ri z e fro m a s i n g l e p l a y h a v i n g a w h o l e s a l e v a l u e m o re th a n the sta tu to ri l yp ros c ri b e d am o u n t. I n J u n e 2 0 0 1 , b o t h t h e Wa c o a n d A u s t i n C o u r t s o f A p p e a l s h a n d e d d o wn deci si ons r eachi ng di f f er ent concl usi ons as t o w het hera gam bl i ng dev i ce t hat21 ... C ompare State v. O ne Super Cher ry Mas ter

V i deo 8-Li ner Mach. , 55 S .W .3 d 5 1 , 5 5 (T e x . A p p .— A u s ti n 2 0 0 1 ), rev’ d, 1 0 2 S .W .3 d 1 3 2 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ), with Ha rdyv. S tate , 5 0 S .W .3 d 6 8 9 , 6 9 7 (T e x . A p p .— W a c o 2 0 0 1 ), a ff’d, 102 S .W .3 d 1 2 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ).

22 ... Hardy , 102 S. W . 3d a t131.
23 ... 1 1 0 S .W .3 d 1 4 6 (T e x . A p p .— A m a ri l l o 2 0 0 3 , n o p e t.). 8 a w ar ded poi nt s r ede em abl e f orgi f tce r t i f i ca t es f el l w i t hi n t he st at uto ry e x c e p ti o n i n s e c ti o n 4 7 .0 1 (4 )(B ). 21 T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t o f T e x a s d e c id e d t h is i ss ue i n Hardya n d hel d t hatt hese devi ces ar e gam bl i ng dev i ces. 22 I n Hardy , t he dev i ce s ati ss ue aw ar ded t i ck et s r ede em abl e e i t herf orgi f tce r t i f i ca t es orf or c a s h fo r fu rth e r p l a yo n th e m a c h i n e s . T h e c o u rt h e l d th a t g i ft c e rti fi c a te s a re a m o n e yeq u i v a l e n t, an d t h e refo re th e m a c h i n e s d i d n o t aw a rd ti c k e ts
r edeem abl e ex clusivelyf ornonc as h pr i z es an d t hus di d notf i tt he exc l us i on und ersect i on 4 7. 01 ( 4) ( B ). T he “ei ght l i ner s” ow ned by A ppel l antl i kew i se aw ar ded po i nt s t hatcoul d be r edeem ed f orr et ai l orr est aur antgi f tcert i f i cat es orf orf urt herpl ay on t he m ac hi nes ei t her a t t hatt i m e o rs om e t i m e i n t he fu tu re . T h u s , b e c a u s e A p p e l l a n t’s g a m b l i n g d e v i c e s d i d n o t re w a rd p l a y e rs e x c l u s i v e l yw i th n o n c a s h p ri z e s , u n d e r Hardy , t hey do not m ee tt he exc l us i on and ar e pr ohi bi t ed gam bl i ng dev i ces. Ap p e l l a n t p o i n t s t o t h e Ama r i l l o C o u r t o f Ap p e a l ’ s d e c i s i o n i n T w e n tyNi n e(2 9) G a m b l

i ngD e vi

c e s v. S tate 23a n d a rg u e s th a t t h e c o u rt th e re24 ... Id. a t151. 9

“conceded ” t hatbef or e th e s u p re m e cour t ’ s Hardydeci si on, t her e w as a con f l i ctbe t w ee n t he A us t i n a nd W ac o Cour t s ofA ppe al s and t hat“ i ft he A m a r illo c o u r tc a n n o td e c id e w h e t h e r [t h e A u s t in C o u r t o fA p p e a ls ’ h o ld in g in Cher ry Master] or [ t he W ac o C ourtofA ppe al s’ hol di ng i n Hardy] pr eva i l s, how can A ppel l antdet er m i ne i fhi s busi ness i nvol ves gam i ng and [ not] gam bl i ng?” A p p e l l a n t m i sc o n stru e s th e o p i n i o n . T h e A m a ri l l o co u rtn o ted tha t pri o r t o Hardy , th e re w a s a s p l i t i n th e c o u rts o f a p p e a l s a s to w h e th e r th e S ta te b o re th e b u r d e n o f p ro o f a t a n a rti c l e 1 8 .1 8 h e a ri n g . R e g a rd i n g th e a p p e l l a n t’s
ar gum entt hatt he devi ces ati ssue f i tt he st at ut or y except io n b e c a u se t hey
aw ar ded po i nt s r edeem abl e f orgi f t cer t i f i cat es and not cash, t he cour tst at ed t hatth i s p o s i t i on w as f or ec l os ed by t he su pr em e c ourt ’ s dec i si on i n Hardy . 24 W e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s f i r sti ssue. Th e supr em e cour t hand ed do w n the Hardyde ci si on i n 2003, af t ert he St at e s ei z ed A ppe l l ant ’ s dev i ce s. I n Appel l ant ’ s t hi r d i ss ue, he ar gue s t hatt he t r i al cour tr ever si bl y er r ed by f ai l i ng t o r et ur n t he pr oper t y because Hardys h o u ld notbe ap pl i ed r et r oac t i vel y. The s upr em e c ourtha s st at ed t hat“ [ a] de ci si on of[ t hatco urt ] ope r at es r et r oac t i vel y un l es s [ t hat cou r t ] ex er ci se s i t s di sc r et i on25 ... Bow en v. A etna Cas . & Sur. Co. , 8 3 7 S .W .2 d 9 9 , 1 0 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ).
26 ... State v. O ne Super Cher ry Mas ter

V i deo 8-Li

ner Machi ne , 102 S .W .3 d 1 3 2 , 1 3 3 (T e x . 2 0 0 3 ).

27 ... E l b a o r v. Sm ith , 8 4 5 S .W .2 d 2 4 0 , 2 5 0 (T e x . 1 9 9 2 ).
28 ... Id. 10 t o m odi f y t hatap pl i ca ti o n .” 25 H er e, t he supr em e cour tdi d not anno unce a l i m i tati o n o n the retroa c ti v e ap p l i c a ti o n o f Hardy . O n t he sam e day i thanded dow n t hatde ci si on, i tha nde d dow n a not herca se r el at i ng t o t he sa m e t ype of gam bl i ng de vi ce s, r ef er r ed t o Hardyas co nt r ol l i ng on t he i ss u e , a n d di d not d i s c u s s a t a l l w h e th e r Hardy sh oul d be app l i ed r et r oac t i vel y orpr os pec t i vel y. 26 B u tt h e s u p r e m e c o u r th a s a ls o s a id t h a ta lt h o u g h it s d e c is io n s u s u a lly appl y r et r oact i vel y, “except i ons ar e r ecogn i zed w hen con si der at i ons off ai r ness a n d p o l i c y d i c ta te p ro s p e c ti v e e ffe c t o n l y .” 27The cou r tad opt ed f ac t or s f r om t he U ni t ed St at es Supr em e Courtf orde t er m i ni ng w hen to app l y a de ci si on re tro a c ti v e l y . T h e fa c to rs a re : ( 1) w het hert he dec i si on e st abl i sh es a new pr i nci pl e o f l a w by ei t herove r r ul i ng c l ea rpa stpr ec ede nton w hi ch l i t i gan t s m ay hav e r el i ed orby dec i di ng a n i ss ue of f i r sti m pr es si on w hos e r es ol ut i on w as notcl ea r l y f or es had ow ed; ( 2) w het herpr os pec t i ve or retroa c ti v e ap p l i c a ti o n o f t h e p a rt i c u l a r rule w i l l fu rt h e r or r e tard i ts ope r at i on t hr o u g h a n ex am i nat i on oft he hi st or y, pur pos e, an d e f f e c t o f t h e r u le ; a n d (3 ) w h e t h e r r e t r o a c t iv e a p p lic a t io n o ft h e ru le coul d pr odu ce subst ant i al i nequ i t abl e r esul t s. 28 A ppe l l antar gue s t hatt he f i r st el em ent i s “e as i l y m et ” bec aus e pr i or t o t he29 ... C f. i d. ( det er m i ni ng th a t th e case r epr esent ed an i ssue off i r st i m pr es si on w hos e r es ol u ti o n w as notcl ea r l y f or es had ow ed bec aus e “ onl y a c o u p le o f s t a t e s [h a d ] p r e v io u s ly ” re a c h e d t h e s a m e h o ld in g a n d t h a t“ [t ]h e o n ly T e x as opi ni on w hi ch eve n hi nt ed” ats uch a hol di ng w as one co ncu r r i ng o p i n i o n ). 11 Hardydeci si on, cour t s of appeal s had been spl i ton t he i ssue ofw het hert hese dev i ce s m ett he exc ept i on of47. 01( 4) ( B) . W e d i sa gr ee . Thatatl ea stone T e x a s a p p e l l a t e c o u rt h a d h e l d th a t th e s e d e v i c e s d i d n o t m e e t th e s ta tu to ry except i on shou l d have i ndi cat ed t o A ppel l antt hatr easonabl e m i nds coul d r each t he sa m e c onc l us i on, an d bec aus e o ft he di sa gr ee m entbe t w ee n t he cou r t s of appeal s, one coul d f or esee t he l i kel i hoo d t hatt he supr em e cour tw oul d consi der t he i ssue. 29T h u s, the fi rst f a c to r do e s n o t f a v o r A p p e l l a n t. O n t he second f act or , A ppel l ant ’ s ar gum ent i s t hathe pai d a per m i tt ax t hr oug h t he ci t y ofFor tW or t h and a l i cense f ee t o t he st at e com pt r ol l er . Th us, a r et r oact i ve appl i cat i on w oul d put t he S t at e i n t he posi t i on ofhavi ng char ged t axe s on i l l ega l ga m bl i ng e qui pm ent . He al so r ai se s t he que st i on ofw het herhe
w oul d have a cause ofact i on agai nstt hose t o w hom he pai d t axes and f ees and ar gue s t hat“ [ i ] tw oul d be di f f i cul t t o se e w hy any r et r oac t i ve app l i ca t i on o f [ Hardy] w oul d do any t hi ng bu thi nde rt he C ourt ’ s opi ni on. ” The r ul e a ti ss ue h e re i s th a t b e c a u s e m o n e yp ri z e s a re p ro h i b i te d b ys ta tu te , m o n e ta ry equ i val ent s ar e a l so pr ohi bi t ed, and none ofA ppe l l ant ’ s ar gum ent s per su ade us30 ... Cher ry Master, 55 S . W . 3d a t55.
31 ... S e e Eub a n ks v. M ullin , 9 0 9 S .W .2 d 5 7 4 , 5 7 6 n .1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 1 9 9 5 , n o w ri t) (n o ti n g th a t th e o p i n i o n s o f o th e r c o u rts o f a p p e a l s a re p e rs u a s i v e b u t n o t c o n tro l l i n g ). 12 t hata r et r oac t i ve app l i ca t i on oft he r ul e w oul d r et ar d i t s ope r at i on. A s f ort he t hi r d f ac t or , A ppe l l antar gue s t hathe boug htt he dev i ce s f r om t he ci t y ofW ac o, a c q u i re d a p er m i tf orhi s bus i nes s and a l i ce ns e f r om t he T e x a s c o m p t r o lle r , p a id f o ra m a in t e n a n c e c o n t r a c tf o ra d a m a g e d d e v ic e , p a id
am usem entt ax, pur chased gi f t car ds f orpr i zes, pur chased r est aur antgi f tcar ds, obtai ned a bank l oan t o pur chase t he devi ces, and w as f or ced t o pay t he l oan af t ert he dev i ce s w ere s e i z e d. He con t end s t hatt he f i nan ci al ha r ds hi ps he suf f er ed because oft he t ot al col l apse of hi s busi ness af t ert he sei zur e “w hen
a r ea so nab l e p er so n w oul d ci t e [ t he A us t i n Cour tofA ppe al s’ opi ni on i n Ch erry Master30 ] a s a n a u t h o r it yt o s t a yin b u s in e s s is p a t [e ]n t ly u n f a ir ,” a n d h e s h o u ld b e all o w e d to s e l l the m a c h i n e s i n a j u ri sd i c ti o n w h e re th e yare l e g a l so as to
r ecoup hi s l osses. These r esul t s ar e not“subst ant ia l i nequ i t abl e r esul t s. ” A
re a s o n a b l e p e rs o n w o u l d n o t h a v e re l i e d o n a n o p i n i o n fro m th e A u s ti n C o u rt ofA ppeal s as contr ol l i ng i n t hi s di st r i ct on an i ssue t hat t hi s cour t had not yet det er m i ned . 31 That i s part i cul ar l y t r ue her e w hen i n t he sa m e m ont h t hatt he A us t i n Cour tofA ppe al s dec i ded Ch er ryMa ster , t h e W a c o C o u r to fA p p e a ls32 ... See Hardy , 50 S . W . 3d a t697.
33 ... Real

Prop. Lo ca ted at

4125Bl

anton, W

i chita F al l s, W i chita Count y, Tex. , W ith a Legal D es cr

i pti on of Lot 1 Block 4 Univ. Par k B1, W i chita Count y, Tex . v. S tate , 2 3 0 S .W .3 d 4 7 6 , 4 8 3 ( T e x . A p p .— F o rtW o rt h 2 0 0 7 , p e t. d e n i e d ). 13 r ea che d t he oppos i t e co n c l u s i on. 32And A ppe l l ant ’ s evi den ce s how s t hathe
ac qui r ed t he bus i nes s per m i tan d t he l i ce ns e f r om t he com pt r ol l eraf t ert he W aco cour tdecl ar ed t hatm achi nes aw ar di ng t hese t ypes of pr i zes di d not m eet t he st at ut or y exc ept i on, so A ppe l l antco ul d notha ve r ea so nab l y r el i ed on t he Cher ry Master

h o ld in g in m a k in g h is d e c is io n t o ru n t h e s e m a c h in e s in h is busi ness. W e over r ul e A ppel l ant ’ s t hi r d i ssue. Ap p e l l a n t i n h i s s e c o n d i s s u e a r g u e s t h a t wi t h t he Hardyde ci si on, t he
su p rem e co u rt“c h a n g e d the rul e s” b y d e c i d i n g th a t gif t ca rds are eq u i v a l e n ts
o f m o n e y . H e c o n ten d s th a t a retroa c ti v e ap p l i c a ti o n o f Hardyi s an i m pr oper appl i cat i on of l aw because t he f eder al and T exas const i t ut i ons pr ohi bi tex post f act o l aw s. Pr ohi bi t i ons agai nstex postf act o l aw s “appl y t o ci vi l st at ut es onl y w hen th e s ta tu to ry s c h e m e i s s o p u n i ti v e e i th e r i n p u rp o s e o r e ffe c t a s to tra n s fo rm
w h a t w a s c l e a rl yi n te n d e d a s a c i v i l re m e d yi n to a c ri m i n a l p e n a l ty .” 33 A f or f ei t ur e p r oce edi ng un derart i cl e 18. 18 i s ci vi l i n nat ur e a nd i s aga i ns tt he pr ope r ty and nott he ow neroft he pr ope r t y a nd i s t her ef or e u su al l y no t34 ... See i d. ( hol di ng t hat ci vi l f or f ei t ur e pr oce edi ngs unde rch apt er59 of th e co d e o f c ri m i n a l p roc e d u re “a re c i v i l , i n rem p roc e e d i n g s a g a i n st p rop e rt y r at hert han agai nstt he de f endan tand ar e notnor m al l y cl assi f i ed as puni sh m ent ” ); Hardy , 1 0 2 S .W .3 d a t 1 2 6

– 2 7 (n o ti n g th a t fo rfe i tu re p ro c e e d i n g s u n d e r a rti c l e 1 8 .1 8 a re c i v i l , i n re m p ro c e e d i n g s ).

35 ... S ee T e x . C o n s t. a rt. I , § 1 6 ; Wessely Ener gy C or p. v. Jenni

ngs , 736 S .W .2 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 7 (T e x . 1 9 8 7 ).

36 ... S e eInreJ.B.W. , 99 S . W . 3d 218, 225 ( Te x. App . — Fo r tW ort h 2003, pet . de ni ed) ( “The r e i s no r i ghtt o c om pl ai n of unpr es er ved t r i al cou r ter r orf or th e fi rs t ti m e o n a p p e a l , e x c e p t w h e n th e e rro r i s fu n d a m e n ta l .” ). 14 pun i t i ve. 34 T h u s, a retroa c ti v e a p p l i c a ti o n o f Hardy does not const i t ut e an ex p o s tf a c t o l a w. A ppe l l antf urt herar gue s t hat t he se i z ur e o ft he dev i ce s com bi ned w i t h t he
m o d i fi c a ti o n o f th e d e fi n i ti o n o f g a m b l i n g d e v i c e u n d e r Hardyan d t he
a p p l i c a ti o n o f th a t d e fi n i ti o n to h i s c a s e “ c o m p l e te l yi m p a i r e d A p p e l l a n t’s obl i gat i on w i t h hi s con t r ac tw i t h Azl e Ba nk. ” W e i nf ert hi s t o be an ar gum ent th a t a retroa c ti v e ap p l i c a ti o n o f Hardyw o u l d v i o l a te th e T e x a s C o n s ti tu ti o n ’s pr ohi bi t i on a gai ns tt he ena ct m ent of a r et r oac t i ve l aw i m pai r i ng t he obl i gat i on ofcont r act s. 35 A ppe l l antdi d notr ai se t hi s ar gum enti n t he t r i al co urt , an d he
m a yn o tra is e itn o w f o rt h e f ir s tt im e o n a p p e a l. 36W e o ver r ul e h i s se con d i ssue. Fi nal l y, w e addr ess an i ssue r ai sed dur i ng or al a rg u m e n t s i n t hi s case. The St at e se i z ed A ppe l l ant ’ s pr ope r t y i n Ju l y 2002. The ca se ag ai ns tA ppe l l ant37 ... S eeTex. C ode C r i m . Pr oc. A nn. art . 1 8 .1 8 ( b) ( r equi r i ng l aw

enf or ce m entag enc y i nf or m ed by t he St at e t hatno p r os ec ut i on w i l l r es ul tf r om s e i z u re to “ ti m e l y ” m a k e m o ti o n fo r s h o w c a u s e h e a ri n g o n fo rfe i tu re ).

38 ... S eeT e x . R . A p p . P . 3 3 .1 (a ); Pat Bak er Co. , 971 S. W . 2d a t450 ( hol di ng t hatappel l at e cour tm ay not r ever se based on a com pl ai ntnotr ai sed i n th e tri a l c o u rt). 15 w a s d is m is s e d in J u n e 2 0 0 4 . N o a c t io n w a s t a k e n b yt h e S t a t e u n d e ra r t ic le 18. 18 af t ert he di sm i ss al , a nd Appel l antf i l ed a m ot i on f ora r el ea se oft he p ro p e rtyi n O c to b e r 2 0 0 6 , m o re th a n t w o y e a rs a fte r th e c h a rg e s w e re d is m is se d . F o l l o w i n g o ral arg u m e n ts, t h e p a rt i e s fi l e d su p p l e m e n tal b ri e fs addr essi ng a q u e s tion r ai sed dur i ng ar gum entas t o how l ong t he S t at e m ay
w ai tt o br i ng a m ot i on f orf or f ei t ur e unde r art i cl e 18. 18 bef or e t he m ot i on i s no l onge r“ t i m el y” unde r t he st at ut e and f or f ei t ur e i s w ai ved . 37Thi s i ss ue w as not
r ai se d i n t he t r i al co urt, h o w eve r , an d t her ef or e w e m ay notad dr es s i ton a p p e a l. 38 H a v i n g o v e rru l e d a l l o f A p p e l l a n t’s i s s u e s , w e a ffir m th e tri a l c o u r t’s j udg m ent s. L E E AN N D AUP HI NOT J U S T I C E PA N EL: DA U PH I N O T and M C C O Y, JJ. ; an d DI X O N W . H O LM A N , J. ( Seni or J u s ti c e , R e ti re d , S i ttin g b yA s s i g n m e n t). DEL I VERE D: J a nu a r y 29, 2009