Court Opinion

ID: 9588618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:36:26.80154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:37.031844
License: Public Domain

Beasley, Judge,
concurring specially.
There is no transcript, but the judgment sets out the findings of fact to which the court applied its understanding of OCGA § 16-13-49 and in particular subsection (a) (4). There were actually two incidents.
Based on information from a confidential informant, the agent and the informant went to a quick market and met outside with defendant, who came in the subject car. The agent expected Hamm to transact a sale of cocaine there, but Hamm motioned the agent to follow him to a certain apartment complex nearby. In that parking lot, Hamm negotiated for a sale and then, with government funds, went into the complex and returned with cocaine in the amount agreed. Everyone left.
Three weeks later the agent contacted Hamm and they arranged to meet at the same market. They met again and this time the informant was with Hamm, in the subject vehicle. As on the first occasion, the agent expected Hamm to produce the cocaine at this location, as Hamm had agreed to do this time, but Hamm suggested that the agents follow him to the same apartments. The agents refused, arrested Hamm for sale of cocaine, and found a loaded firearm but no cocaine during the car inventory search.
In view of some of the parties’ argument, it should be made clear that the State does not have to show that the forbidden property was actually transported at some time in the vehicle. If the vehicle was in fact used, that is an objective and outward event which supplies the *186element. But it is also enough if there is evidence that the vehicle was “intended for use, to transport, hold, conceal, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation” of the forbidden property for its sale or receipt. That is, even if there is no proof that the vehicle was actually used for transportation of the property (or some other enumerated purpose with respect to it), if there is evidence that it was merely “intended to be used,” such subjective, intangible, matter-of-the-mind proof as to the future would qualify the vehicle for forfeiture. Such intention may be proved indirectly, OCGA § 16-2-6, by a preponderance of evidence, OCGA § 24-4-3.
Decided September 25, 1989
Rehearing denied October 16, 1989
Robert E. Keller, District Attorney, Daniel J. Cahill, Jr., Lisa A. Curia, Assistant District Attorneys, for appellant.
Fowler, Hein & Daum, Douglas R. Daum, for appellees.
I depart from the majority when it says that it is undisputed that the vehicle was not intended for a prohibited use. A reasonable inference could be made that Hamm intended to use the car “to transport, hold, conceal, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation of’ the cocaine, particularly since a loaded weapon was found in the car. See State of Ga. v. Belcher, 165 Ga. App. 139, 140 (299 SE2d 57) (1983). However, whether the evidence would support such a finding is immaterial because the language in the court’s order indicates that the court considered this alternative and did not so find. In any event, it does not appear that the court misconstrued the Georgia statute, and we are bound by its findings of fact. As said in Belcher, supra: “Resolution of the use or intended use of the [vehicle] for transportation or facilitation of transportation of the cocaine was the duty of the [factfinder].”