Title: Harris v. State
Citation: 821 So. 2d 177
Docket Number: 1000824
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: October 5, 2001

821 So. 2d 177 (2001)
Georgia HARRIS et al.
v.
STATE of Alabama.
1000824.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
October 5, 2001.
Rehearing Denied November 16, 2001.
*178 Ted Strickland, Tuscaloosa, for appellants.
Bill Pryor, atty. gen., and Yvonne A.H. Saxon, asst. atty. gen., for appellee.
WOODALL, Justice.
Georgia Harris, Calvin Binion, and Gregory Binion appeal from the trial court's judgment forfeiting $165,501 in U.S. currency (against Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion) and one 1991 Lexus automobile, VIN# JT8UF11E5M0094283 (against Calvin Binion). As to the currency, Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion argue, and as to the automobile, Calvin Binion argues, that the State failed to prove that the search of their residence was conducted pursuant to a lawful search warrant; that the State destroyed evidence potentially helpful to Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion, by depositing the seized currency into a bank account where it was commingled with other currency; that the forfeitures of the currency and the vehicle violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against excessive fines; and that the State failed to prove that the currency or the vehicle was used or intended to be used in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act.
The State filed its complaint against Georgia Harris, Gregory Binion, and Calvin Binion seeking forfeiture of the currency and the automobile, pursuant to § 20-2-93, Ala.Code 1975. Following oral proceedings, the trial court entered the following judgment:
"1 The State called this claimant to testify during its case-in-chief, at which time she took the stand and invoked her 5th Amendment rights. She was then called by her attorney to testify during presentation of her case, at which time she took the stand and indicated her willingness, after presentation of all the State's evidence, to waive her rights against self-incrimination. The State objected to the Court's allowing her to testify following her refusal to testify during the State's case and ruling was reserved by the Court for submission of briefs on the issue. Following her cross-examination by the State, however, the State withdrew its objection on this basis to her testimony.
"2 Georgia Harris recited the combination at the trial, however.
"3 Counsel for Claimants claims that this was improper, as the actual currency seized is no longer available for his inspection, or for the State's identification at trial. The deposit was made pursuant to police department policy, which prevents the storage of currency at police headquarters."
Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion first contend that the search of their residence was not conducted pursuant to a lawful search warrant, as required by Nicaud v. State, 401 So. 2d 43 (Ala.1981). The State argues that this issue was not properly preserved for appellate review, because Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion failed to object at trial to the admission of the warrant or to the admission of any evidence seized pursuant to the warrant. Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion first objected to the search warrant in a motion to dismiss which they filed at the close of the State's case. That objection was not timely. Therefore, the search-warrant issue is not properly before this Court. See Draper v. State, 641 So. 2d 1283 (Ala.Crim. App.1993); Newsome v. State, 570 So. 2d 703, 716 (Ala.Crim.App.1990)("Review on appeal is limited to review of questions properly and timely raised at trial.").
Next, Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion argue that the State unlawfully tampered with or destroyed evidence by placing the seized currency in a bank account, without first noting the serial numbers on the currency, thereby commingling the currency with other currency and preventing Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion from examining the currency seized. However, they cite no relevant authority in support of this argument, as they are required to do by Rule 28(a)(5), Ala. R.App. P. "Where an appellant fails to cite any authority for an argument, this Court may affirm the judgment as to those issues...." *185 Sea Calm Shipping Co. v. Cooks, 565 So. 2d 212, 216 (Ala.1990).
Georgia Harris, Gregory Binion, and Calvin Binion argue that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that the currency or the vehicle seized was used in violation of the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act. In Robbs v. State ex rel. Whetstone, 674 So. 2d 1301, 1302-03 (Ala.Civ.App.1995), the Court of Civil Appeals correctly stated the relevant legal principles:
In a statement entirely applicable to this case, the Court of Civil Appeals has described the burden of proof regarding the forfeiture of seized currency:
$1,568.00 U.S. Currency v. State, 612 So. 2d 497, 499 (Ala.Civ.App.1992).
We conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by competent evidence, set forth in painstaking detail in its order, insofar as the forfeiture of the currency is concerned. The trial court's findings with regard to the currency are not palpably wrong.
However, we conclude that, insofar as the forfeiture of the automobile is concerned, the judgment of the trial court is so unsupported by the evidence as to be plainly and palpably erroneous. Therefore, to the extent that the trial court's judgment ordered the forfeiture of the 1991 Lexus automobile, the judgment is reversed.
The State produced evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Gregory Binion is the actual owner of the automobile. In fact, Calvin Binion and Gregory Binion do not challenge that finding in their briefs filed with this Court. However, proof of ownership alone does not support the forfeiture of the vehicle. While the State argues that the automobile was used repeatedly in Gregory Binion's drug transactions, the State can point to no evidence tending to support that conclusion. There were no drugs in the automobile when it was seized. There was no evidence indicating that any drug transaction had taken place immediately before the seizure. There was no evidence indicating that the automobile had been used to transport a controlled substance. Finally, there was no evidence indicating that the automobile had been purchased with the proceeds from any violation of any law of this State concerning controlled substances.
*186 Finally, Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion argue that the forfeiture of the currency constitutes an excessive fine, in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. A forfeiture violates the excessive-fines clause if it is "grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense." United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 334, 118 S. Ct. 2028, 141 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1998). See Ex parte Kelley, 766 So. 2d 837, 839 (Ala.1999) (discussing and applying the Bajakajian standard). Georgia Harris and Gregory Binion's excessive-fine argument has no merit.
The trial court found "overwhelming circumstantial evidence ... that Gregory Binion was involved in a high-profit business of narcotics sales." The trial court also found that "Gregory Binion ran a high-profit drug distribution business, the sort of business that the legislature meant to address with the current drug forfeiture statute." We note that the fines for those convicted of trafficking in cocaine range from $50,000 to $250,000, depending upon the quantity of the controlled substance. Therefore, we cannot conclude that the forfeiture of $165,501 is an excessive fine prohibited by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed insofar as it ordered the forfeiture of the currency; it is reversed insofar as it ordered the forfeiture of the automobile. This case is remanded for the entry of an order or for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED.
MOORE, C.J., and HOUSTON, LYONS, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur.
[1]  There is no explanation in the record or in the parties' briefs as to why Georgia Harris claims ownership of $120,000 and Gregory Binion claims ownership of $35,501; these two figures total only $155,501, leaving $10,000, of the total $165,501 forfeited, unclaimed.