Court Opinion

ID: 9565634
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:24:51.449383+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:48.433168
License: Public Domain

BERNES, Judge,
concurring specially.
While I fully concur with Division 1 and the judgment, I do not agree with the reasoning of Division 2. The majority in Division 2 holds that appellant waived his argument that the state presented insufficient evidence that the Porsche was bought with proceeds from drug sales by never raising the issue in the forfeiture proceeding. In a civil proceeding such as a forfeiture action,3 the failure to object on sufficiency grounds in the court below does bar an appellant from arguing on appeal that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Internal Medicine Alliance v. Budell, 290 Ga. App. 231, 238 (5), n. 4 (659 SE2d 668) (2008). Significantly, however, the failure to object does not bar an appellant from arguing on appeal that he is entitled to a new trial based on insufficient evidence. Id. See Aldworth Co. v. England, 281 Ga. 197, 197-198 (637 SE2d 198) (2006). As such, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that appellant procedurally waived his sufficiency challenge by not raising the issue in the court below. Nevertheless, I agree with the ultimate result in this case because there was sufficient evidence that appellant had no ownership interest in the car, and once this determination was made, he had no standing to raise any further challenge. See, e.g., Baker v. State of Ga., 269 Ga. App. 722, 725 (605 SE2d 126) (2004) (“[I]n the absence of a legally sufficient claim, the owner or interest holder lacks standing to assert — and the trial court lacks authority to consider — the owner or interest holder’s challenges to the forfeiture.”); State of Ga. v. Richardson, 276 Ga. App. 784 (625 SE2d 52) (2005) (claimants lacked standing to contest the forfeiture of the currency because they failed to meet their burden of establishing an ownership interest in the seized currency).
*907J. Gray Conger, District Attorney, David R. Helmick, Assistant District Attorney, Douglas L. Breault, for appellee.

 See Bettis v. State of Ga., 228 Ga. App. 120, 121 (491 SE2d 155) (1997) (“A forfeiture action is a civil proceeding.”) (citation, punctuation and emphasis omitted).