Court Opinion

ID: 9965804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-03 15:02:36.376871+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:40.596733
License: Public Domain

Rel: May 3, 2024

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue,
Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections
may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

 ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
                               OCTOBER TERM, 2023-2024
                                _________________________

                                         CL-2023-0412
                                   _________________________

                                       Jeremy S. Mitchem

                                                      v.

   State of Alabama ex rel. Robert Broussard, District Attorney
               for the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit

                         Appeal from Madison Circuit Court
                                   (CV-20-901674)

HANSON, Judge.

        Jeremy S. Mitchem appeals from a judgment entered by the

Madison Circuit Court ("the trial court") ordering the forfeiture of $6,646
CL-2023-0412

in United States currency ("the currency") to the State of Alabama. We

reverse the trial court's judgment.

                           Procedural History

     On December 9, 2020, Robert L. Broussard, the district attorney for

the Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Alabama, commenced, on behalf of

the State, a forfeiture action seeking to condemn the currency, which,

according to the complaint, had been seized from Mitchem's possession

and should be forfeited to the State pursuant to former Ala. Code 1975, §

20-2-93.1 Mitchem filed an answer to the complaint, and, on May 8, 2023,

a trial was conducted.    On May 15, 2023, the trial court entered a

judgment concluding that the State had "established a prima facie case

as to certain property sought to be forfeited" and declaring that the

currency was "contraband" and was "forfeited to the [State] for use in law

enforcement." On May 25, 2023, Mitchem filed a postjudgment motion.

On June 2, 2023, Mitchem filed a notice of appeal to this court; pursuant

to Rule 4(a)(5), Ala. R. App. P., the notice of appeal was held in abeyance

until August 23, 2023, the date on which Mitchem's postjudgment motion

was denied by operation of law. See Rule 59.1, Ala. R. Civ. P.

     1Section 20-2-93 was amended effective January 1, 2022.

                                      2
CL-2023-0412

                                  Facts

     The evidence indicates that the currency was seized as the result of

a traffic stop that occurred on November 27, 2020. Jesse McKinney, a

deputy with the Madison County Sheriff's Office, testified that he and

another deputy had observed an automobile with an expired tag sitting

for "a strange amount of time" at a gas pump at a fueling station and

that, once the vehicle left the station, he and the other deputy had

initiated a traffic stop on the vehicle, which did not stop. McKinney

stated that he had engaged in a chase of the vehicle, that the chase had

covered approximately 26 miles and had reached speeds up to 100 miles

per hour, and that the vehicle had eventually collided with another patrol

unit, after which the vehicle had come to a stop. McKinney testified that

Mitchem had been the driver of the vehicle that had been involved in the

chase, that Mitchem had been removed from the vehicle and taken into

custody, and that McKinney had, upon Mitchem's being removed from

the vehicle, begun to inventory the vehicle. On direct examination by

counsel for the State, McKinney testified as follows regarding what was

discovered inside the vehicle:

           "Q. Okay. And during the course of the inventory of
     that vehicle what did you find, sir?

                                    3
CL-2023-0412

          "[McKinney:] We found a variety of different drugs and
     narcotics and a decent sum of money.

         "Q. Would it be safe to say that you found
     methamphetamines, pills of various types --

           "[McKinney:] That's correct.

          "Q. -- some stuff that you believed to be molly and
     another water bottle that you believed to contain GHB?

           "[McKinney:] That's right."

McKinney testified that, after locating those items in Mitchem's vehicle,

he had contacted narcotics officers. He testified that, upon a search of

Mitchem's person, only the currency was found.

     Josh Moseley, an investigator with the Madison County sheriff's

office, testified that he had responded to the scene after narcotics were

located in Mitchem's vehicle and that he had interviewed Mitchem and

had advised him of his rights. He stated that Mitchem had agreed to

speak to him and that Mitchem had stated that he had been the only

occupant in the vehicle, that the drugs found in the vehicle belonged to

him, and that "he sells narcotics because ... '[i]t's hard out here.' "

According to Moseley, Mitchem stated that "he sells a quarter ounce of

weed for sixty dollars, a whole ounce of weed for a hundred and twenty

                                   4
CL-2023-0412

dollars, and an ounce of ICE or methamphetamine for six hundred

dollars." He testified that Mitchem had consented to a search of his hotel

room and that a search of that room had been conducted. Moseley then

testified on direct examination by counsel for the State as follows:

           "Q. And was any contraband found in the hotel room
     that you know of?

          "[Moseley:] I don't recall if there was anything found in
     the hotel room or not.

         "Q. All right. In addition to drugs found, was there an
     amount of money found?

           "[Moseley:] There was. It was --

           "Q. Was that six thousand, six hundred and forty-six
     dollars?

           "[Moseley:] Six thousand, six hundred and fifty-six, I
     believe.

          "Q. And was that on [Mitchem] -- in [Mitchem]'s
     possession?

           "[Moseley:] It was, yes, sir.

         "Q. And was he arrested on the charges in this case?
     Was he arrested for possession?

          "[Moseley:] I believe so, but I don't recall because that
     would have been [another investigator's] paperwork for the
     arrest."

                                     5
CL-2023-0412

Moseley testified that he had been present for the conversation that had

taken place during which Mitchem had admitted to selling drugs and had

claimed ownership of the drugs that were found.

     Mitchem testified that he had "been arrested quite a bit." He

recalled   having    been   tried   and   convicted   for   trafficking   in

methamphetamine in 2018. Mitchem stated that, on the occasion leading

to his arrest in the present case, he had borrowed a vehicle to pick up

some mail from his mother's house and to take Thanksgiving dinner to

someone. He stated that he did not know anything about the drugs in

the vehicle, "if they even were drugs." He testified that his father had

given him the currency that was found in his possession to purchase a

vehicle and that it "had nothing to do with any kind of illegal activities."

He stated that he had not stopped the vehicle and had sped off because

he "had warrants."

     The State submitted as an exhibit a jury-verdict form and a

sentencing order dated March 31, 2022, from a criminal case involving

Mitchem; those documents indicated that Mitchem had been sentenced

to imprisonment on that date on charges of burglary and trafficking in a

controlled substance. The State's counsel acknowledged that, although

                                     6
CL-2023-0412

that exhibit did not "pertain to the facts of [the present case], it shows

pattern or practice."

                           Standard of Review

     In Wilson v. State, 296 So. 3d 321, 326 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019), this

court outlined the applicable standard of review to be applied in a civil-

forfeiture proceeding:

           " 'On appellate review of a ruling from a forfeiture
     proceeding at which the evidence was presented ore tenus, the
     trial court's judgment is presumed to be correct unless the
     record shows it to be contrary to the great weight of the
     evidence.' Ex parte McConathy, 911 So. 2d [677, 681 (Ala.
     2005)]. 'The ore tenus rule does not, however, extend to cloak
     a trial judge's conclusions of law or incorrect application of law
     to the facts with a presumption of correctness.' $3,011 in
     United States Currency v. State, 845 So. 2d 810, 814 (Ala. Civ.
     App. 2002). We review such questions de novo. See, e.g.,
     South Alabama Brick Co. v. Carwie, 214 So. 3d 1169, 1175
     (Ala. 2016)."

                                 Analysis

     The version of § 20-2-93 that was in effect at the time of the filing

of the complaint in the present case provided, in pertinent part:

           "(a) The following are subject to forfeiture:

                 "....

                "(4) All moneys, negotiable instruments,
           securities, or other things of value furnished or
           intended to be furnished by any person in

                                     7
CL-2023-0412

           exchange for a controlled substance in violation of
           any law of this state; all proceeds traceable to such
           an exchange; and all moneys, negotiable
           instruments, and securities used or intended to be
           used to facilitate any violation of any law of this
           state concerning controlled substances."

" 'Under [former] § 20-2-93 the State must establish a prima facie case for

the seizure, condemnation, and forfeiture of the property. The standard

of proof is reasonable satisfaction. The statute is penal in nature and, as

such, should be strictly construed.' " Holloway v. State ex rel. Whetstone,

772 So. 2d 475, 476 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000) (quoting State v. Smith, 578 So.

2d 1374, 1376 (Ala. Civ. App. 1991)).

     Mitchem asserts on appeal that the trial court erred in concluding

that the State had made a prima facie case justifying forfeiture of the

currency and that the judgment is unsupported by the evidence

presented. He cites in support of his argument, among other cases, Ex

parte McConathy, 911 So. 2d 677 (Ala. 2005).          In McConathy, our

supreme court reversed a judgment ordering the forfeiture of $8,000 in

United States currency following the detention of Jeffrey Daren

McConathy for possession of a controlled substance. 911 So. 2d at 678.

The evidence in McConathy indicated, in pertinent part, that McConathy

was arrested after purchasing Xanax pills from a confidential informant

                                    8
CL-2023-0412

and that, following his arrest, McConathy was searched. Police

discovered $8,000 in United States currency in his possession. Id. at 678-

79. McConathy testified that he had earned the $8,000 from the sale of

his oil-change business and that he had had no intention of spending the

$8,000 to purchase drugs. Id. at 680. Our supreme court noted that "[t]he

mere presence of money in the proximity of controlled substances is

insufficient to justify the forfeiture of the money."     Id. at 682.   It

acknowledged that the State of Alabama had failed to establish a

connection between the Xanax pills and the $8,000 in United States

currency and that there was no direct link between the $8,000 and the

supposed future purchase of controlled substances, despite evidence

presented by the State indicating that McConathy had indicated that he

intended to continue purchasing controlled substances. Id. In concluding

that the judgment ordering forfeiture in that case was against the great

weight of the evidence, our supreme court stated, in pertinent part:

            "The fact that McConathy had $8,000 on December 18,
     2002, and according to Officer Boyd he led the officers to
     believe that he was going to continue to purchase controlled
     substances is insufficient to establish a prima facie case under
     [former] § 20-2-93, Ala. Code 1975. As the court noted in
     Gatlin [v. State], [846 So. 2d 1090 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002)],
     '[a]lthough the evidence presented by the State might lead one
     to suspect that Gatlin was involved in illegal drug activity,

                                    9
CL-2023-0412

     mere suspicion is insufficient to support a judgment of
     forfeiture.' 846 So. 2d at 1093. As was the case in Gatlin,
     there is no concrete evidence tying the $8,000 to a specific
     drug transaction, past or future. To say that McConathy
     would use this $8,000 to purchase controlled substances at a
     future date is simply speculation, and speculation will not
     support a judgment of forfeiture."

911 So. 2d at 688.

     In the present case, the State argues that there was no mere

suspicion that Mitchem was engaged in the drug trade and that the trial

court could have reasonably inferred from the evidence that the currency

found on Mitchem 2 had resulted from one, or several, previous drug

transactions. The State cites the evidence indicating that Mitchem had

been convicted of drug trafficking in an unrelated case, which, it argues,

is "indicative of [Mitchem's] habits." State's brief, p. 16. Mitchem cites

this court's decision in Bolden v. State, 127 So. 3d 1195 (Ala. Civ. App.

2012), in which we reversed a judgment ordering the forfeiture of $8,265

in United States currency that had been found in the glove compartment

of an automobile driven by Richard L. Bolden. This court determined

     2The  State maintains throughout its brief on appeal that the
currency was found in Mitchem's hotel room. We note, however, that the
testimony indicates instead that the currency was found on Mitchem's
person.
                                   10
CL-2023-0412

that "[e]vidence indicating that Bolden ha[d] sold drugs at some

indefinite time in the past coupled with the discovery of $8,265 in his

vehicle [wa]s insufficient to establish that the $8,265 was due to be

forfeited." Id. at 1201. Similarly, in the present case, although the State

presented evidence indicating that Mitchem had engaged in the sale of

drugs at some indefinite time, there was no concrete evidence tying the

currency found on his person to a specific drug transaction.

     In Gatlin v. State, 846 So. 2d 1090, 1093 (Ala. Civ. App. 2002), this

court acknowledged that

     "[o]ur forfeiture cases have found the following circumstances
     to be indicative of contemplated or completed drug
     transactions: a large quantity of drugs, see, e.g., Shepherd v.
     State, 664 So. 2d 238 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995) (21 pounds of
     marihuana); drugs packaged for sale, see, e.g., Pointer v.
     State, 668 So. 2d 41 (Ala. Civ. App. 1995); drug paraphernalia
     or accouterments indicating sale, such as 'baggies' or scales,
     see, e.g., Johnson v. State, 667 So. 2d 105, 108 (Ala. Civ. App.
     1995)."

Like in Gatlin, none of those circumstances, nor an equivalent

circumstance, is present in this case. Although McKinney testified that

he had found a "variety of different drugs and narcotics" in the vehicle

that Mitchem was driving, there is no evidence indicating the amounts

of the various drugs that were found. Thus, that evidence would not

                                    11
CL-2023-0412

support a conclusion that the drugs were of a quantity large enough to

indicate that the currency related to a contemplated or completed drug

transaction. The evidence also does not indicate that the drugs that were

found in the vehicle driven by Mitchem were packaged for sale or were

accompanied by any additional items indicating their intended sale.

       In McConathy, our supreme court noted that McConathy had

"presented undisputed evidence as to the source of the seized currency,

and the officers were unable to trace the seized currency to ' "any specific

drug transaction or any transaction [in] violation of the Alabama

controlled substances law." ' " 911 So. 2d at 687-88 (quoting Holloway,

772 So. 2d at 477). Similarly, in the present case, Mitchem testified that

his father had given him the currency to purchase a vehicle. 3 The State

failed to present any evidence contradicting that testimony or tying the

currency to a specific drug transaction, past or future.           Like in

McConathy, in which McConathy indicated his intention to continue

purchasing controlled substances, Mitchem's statements in the present

     3We note that Mitchem attached as an exhibit to his postjudgment

motion the affidavit of his father, who asserted therein that he had given
money to Mitchem. There is no indication that the trial court considered
that affidavit, however, and we have not considered it in rendering our
opinion in this case.
                                    12
CL-2023-0412

case that he sells drugs and his conviction for an unrelated drug offense

are insufficient to tie the currency to a specific drug transaction in the

past or in the future, the occurrence of which was only speculative based

on the evidence presented.

     Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the judgment in this case

is against the great weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we reverse the

trial court's judgment and remand the case to the trial court for the entry

of a judgment consistent with this opinion.

     REVERSED AND REMANDED.

     Moore, P.J., and Fridy and Lewis, JJ., concur.

     Edwards, J., dissents, with opinion.

                                    13
CL-2023-0412

EDWARDS, Judge, dissenting.

      I respectfully dissent. In my opinion, the evidence presented to the

Madison Circuit Court ("the trial court") was sufficient to provide a basis

for that court to have determined that it was reasonably satisfied that

the $6,646 in United States currency ("the currency") seized by the

Madison County Sheriff's Department ("the department") was used in the

facilitation of a violation of the version of the Alabama Uniform

Controlled Substances Act ("the Act"), Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2-1 et seq.,

then in effect. Therefore, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court

forfeiting the currency pursuant to former Ala. Code 1975, § 20-2-

93(b)(3).

      As the main opinion states, the testimony and documentary

evidence at trial indicated that officers employed by the department had

detained Jeremy Mitchem and had secured the currency during a search

of Mitchem and the Chevy Tahoe sports-utility vehicle ("the vehicle") he

had been driving.    Officer Jesse McKinney testified that he and his

partner, Deputy Tower, had noticed the vehicle at a gas station and that

they had decided to pull over the vehicle after verifying that the tag was

expired.    According to Officer McKinney, when he initiated the traffic

                                    14
CL-2023-0412

stop, Mitchem did not pull the vehicle over; instead, he led the officers on

a high-speed chase, which, McKinney said, had ended when the vehicle

collided with a patrol vehicle. Officer McKinney testified that, during the

ensuing search of the vehicle, "[w]e found a variety of different drugs and

narcotics and a decent sum of money." He indicated that the controlled

substances found in the vehicle included methamphetamine, "molly," and

pills of various types.

      Josh Moseley, an investigator with the department, testified that

he and his partner, Investigator Region, had interviewed Mitchem

subsequent to the events recounted above.         Moseley explained that

Mitchem had admitted that the drugs found during the search of the

vehicle were his and that "he sells narcotics because and I quote 'It's hard

out here.' " According to Moseley, Mitchem had explained that "he sells

a quarter ounce of weed for sixty dollars, a whole ounce of weed for a

hundred and twenty dollars, and an ounce of ICE or methamphetamine

for six hundred dollars."

      During his testimony, Mitchem admitted that he had been

convicted of a charge of trafficking methamphetamine; the sentencing

order for that charge was admitted as evidence. He testified, however,

                                    15
CL-2023-0412

that he had not had knowledge about the drugs that were located during

the search of the vehicle, which, he said, he had borrowed. He also

explained that the currency was not related to any illegal activity,

stating, "my dad had gave [sic] me that money to buy a vehicle." When

asked why he had sped away from the traffic stop, Mitchem testified that

he had done so because he had outstanding warrants.

     Unlike the majority, I am not convinced that Ex parte McConathy,

911 So. 2d 677 (Ala. 2005), requires a reversal of the trial court's

judgment. In Ex parte McConathy, our supreme court reversed this

court's no-opinion order affirming the judgment entered by the Shelby

Circuit Court forfeiting $8,000 in United States currency. 911 So. 2d at

688. Our supreme court explained that the State of Alabama had not

presented sufficient evidence to support a conclusion that the $8,000 had

been used or was intended to be used to facilitate a violation of the Act.

     The defendant in Ex parte McConathy had been accused solely of

purchasing a controlled substance, specifically 23 Xanax pills, for $67.

Id. at 678-79. At the time he was detained by law-enforcement officers,

McConathy had in his possession $8,000 in cash and a $9,000 cashier's

check. Id. at 679. McConathy had testified and had provided

                                    16
CL-2023-0412

documentary evidence indicating that the $8,000 in his possession was

the remaining proceeds of a check for $12,000 that he had received from

the sale of real property that had occurred 10 days before the seizure. Id.

at 680. Our supreme court stressed that the State had not contended

that McConathy was a "drug dealer" and determined that the evidence

had not been sufficient to establish that the $8,000 was related in any

way to the sale or purchase of drugs by McConathy. Id. at 681. Our

supreme court specifically concluded that, because "McConathy [had]

presented undisputed evidence as to the source of the seized currency,

and the officers were unable to trace the currency to ' "any specific drug

transaction or any transaction [in] violation of the Alabama controlled

substances law," ' " the Shelby Circuit Court's judgment was supported by

only speculation that McConathy might use the $8,000 to purchase drugs

at some future date. Id. at 687-88 (quoting Holloway v. State ex rel.

Whetstone, 772 So. 2d 475, 477 (Ala. Civ. App. 2000)).

     In the present case, however, the evidence presented to the trial

court indicates that Mitchem admitted that the drugs found in the search

of the vehicle he was driving were his and that he sold "narcotics because

… 'It's hard out here.' " The drugs found during the search of the vehicle

                                    17
CL-2023-0412

were of various types, including methamphetamine, "molly," and various

pills, and Mitchem had informed the investigators of the prices for which

he sold various controlled substances. Documentary evidence further

established that Mitchem had pleaded guilty to drug trafficking,

specifically, trafficking methamphetamine, one of the drugs that was

found in the search of the vehicle.       Although in his own testimony

Mitchem disavowed knowledge of the drugs found in the vehicle and

although Mitchem testified that his father had given him the currency so

that he could purchase a vehicle and that the currency was not related to

any drug transactions, Mitchem provided no testimony other than his

own to establish the reason for his having the currency on his person. In

light of Mitchem's previous conviction for drug trafficking, his admission

to Moseley that he was a "drug dealer," and the testimony indicating that

Mitchem had informed Moseley of the prices that he currently charged

for the drugs that he sold, the trial court could have rejected, and clearly

did reject, Mitchem's testimony indicating that the currency was not

related to any illegal activity. Thus, I believe that the evidence before

the trial court was sufficient for that court to be reasonably satisfied that

the currency was related to a violation of the Act.

                                     18