2004 Dodge Ram 1500 TX LP CPL1988 and 2000 Buick TX LP CV1N817 v. State
03-14-00704-CV
| Tex. App. | May 12, 2015Background
- On March 6, 2014 Milam County deputies seized a 2004 Dodge and 2000 Buick from LaToya Alcorn’s residence pursuant to a warrant based on an affidavit alleging two prior sales of cocaine involving Mr. Alcorn and those vehicles.
- Deputies provided Alcorn with the seizure warrant and inventory at the scene and had her sign an inventory for personal items, but she was not served with the forfeiture suit within the 30-day period prescribed by Article 59.04. She first answered 82 days after seizure.
- The State personally served and later obtained judgments against other named titleholders and served Mr. Alcorn in jail; it amended its petition to add Mrs. Alcorn 152 days after seizure and moved for traditional and no-evidence summary judgment against her.
- Mrs. Alcorn filed verified answers and affirmative defenses (limitations, innocent-owner under art. 59.02(c)/(h), and Eighth Amendment disproportionality), and submitted affidavits and receipts supporting ownership, post-alleged improvements, and the disappearance/value of rims seized.
- The trial court granted full and final summary judgment for the State and denied Alcorn’s motion for new trial; Alcorn appeals arguing service/diligence (limitations), insufficiency/incompetence of the State’s summary-judgment evidence (probable cause v. actual contraband), the erroneous exclusion of spouses from the innocent-owner defense (relying on Amrani-Khaldi), and procedural unfairness/discovery deprivation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Alcorn) | Held (trial-court posture) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Timeliness/service under Art. 59.04 (statute of limitations) | Alleges Alcorn waived service by appearing; therefore limitations defense fails. | Alcorn contends her appearance was after the 30‑day window and appearance does not waive the limitations defense; State failed to show due diligence in serving her. | Trial court granted State summary judgment; Alcorn argues this was erroneous. |
| 2) Competency and sufficiency of State's summary-judgment evidence (probable cause vs. contraband) | Affidavit and warrant establish probable cause and that vehicles were contraband. | Alcorn argues the affidavit rests on unidentified confidential informants, hearsay, unproduced videos, and lacks independent corroboration so it cannot conclusively prove probable cause or actual contraband. | Trial court accepted State evidence for summary judgment; Alcorn challenges sufficiency and competency. |
| 3) Spousal use of innocent‑owner defense (Amrani‑Khaldi) | Implicitly relies on precedent denying a spouse the benefit of innocent‑owner protection in some contexts. | Alcorn argues Amrani‑Khaldi is not controlling, is contrary to Family Code principles and statutory innocent‑owner protections, and treating spouses differently is inequitable and unsupported by current law. | Trial court treated spouse’s claim as lacking; Alcorn contends this was in error. |
| 4) Procedural fairness and premature summary judgment (discovery and new evidence) | State proceeded by motion and obtained summary judgment. | Alcorn asserts summary judgment was premature given discovery deficiencies, late disclosure by State, and newly developed evidence (receipts, affidavits, missing property) that would create fact issues. | Trial court denied new trial and entered final judgment for State; Alcorn seeks reversal/remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Austin v. United States, 509 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1993) (discusses limits on forfeiture and protections for innocent owners)
- Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442 (U.S. 1996) (upholds forfeiture where statute lacks innocent-owner defense)
- United States v. Ward, 448 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1980) (distinguishes forfeiture from remedial liability and restitution)
- State v. $90,235.00, 390 S.W.3d 289 (Tex. 2013) (requires proof both of probable cause to seize and that property is contraband)
- Amrani‑Khaldi v. State, 575 S.W.2d 667 (Tex. Civ. App. 1978) (older Texas appellate decision limiting spouses’ use of innocent-owner defenses; principal target of Alcorn’s attack)
- Flores v. State, 319 S.W.3d 697 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (addresses informant corroboration and probable-cause analysis)