$990.00 in U.S. Currency, Garmin Nuvi GPS, Garmin Large Screen GPS, and KD Android Computer Tablet v. State, 06-14-00085-CV

Police investigated Robert “Bob” Daugherty for methamphetamine activity; surveillance, a traffic stop, and a search warrant execution in July 2014 led to seizures: drugs, digital scales, $990 seized from a motel room (plus $1,608 found on Daugherty earlier), two Garmin GPS units, and a KDA Android tablet; a 2008 Mazda was also seized earlier.
Daugherty was prosecuted criminally (federal convictions earlier) and the State initiated civil forfeiture proceedings under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure; the trial court held a forfeiture hearing on September 24, 2014.
The trial court found the cash, GPS units, tablet, and vehicle to be contraband and ordered forfeiture to the State; final judgment entered September 24, 2014.
Daugherty, proceeding pro se on appeal, raised two issues: (1) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for continuance to await resolution of related criminal cases; and (2) the court abused its discretion by refusing to appoint counsel.
The State’s brief argues (and asks the appellate court to affirm) that (a) the continuance motion was untimely (presented the day of trial) and, in any event, the pendency of related criminal proceedings does not require delay of a civil forfeiture; and (b) Chapter 59 does not provide a right to appointed counsel in forfeiture proceedings, so denial was not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for continuance to wait for related criminal proceedings	Daugherty: civil forfeiture should be continued until related criminal matters are resolved	State: motion was filed on the day of trial (untimely) and the pendency of criminal charges does not bar contemporaneous civil forfeiture	Trial court did not abuse discretion (motion untimely; civil case may proceed independently of criminal matters)
Whether the trial court erred by refusing to appoint counsel for an indigent respondent in a Chapter 59 forfeiture	Daugherty: requested court-appointed counsel at trial	State: Chapter 59 provides no statutory right to appointed counsel in forfeiture proceedings; appointment is discretionary and not required here	Trial court did not abuse discretion (no statutory right to appointed counsel in Chapter 59 proceedings)

In re Estate of Taylor, 305 S.W.3d 829 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2010) (pro se litigants are held to same procedural standards as attorneys)
McInnis v. State, 618 S.W.2d 389 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 1981) (pending criminal charges do not require continuation of distinct civil proceedings)
$567.00 in United States Currency v. State, 282 S.W.3d 244 (Tex. App.—Beaumont 2009) (Chapter 59 does not provide for appointment of counsel to represent an indigent person in a forfeiture proceeding)
In re Gore, 251 S.W.3d 696 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2007) (pendency of criminal matter does not automatically stay related civil proceedings)
Villegas v. Carter, 711 S.W.2d 624 (Tex. 1986) (standard of review for denial of continuance is abuse of discretion)
In the Interest of R.A.L., 291 S.W.3d 438 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2009) (motions for continuance filed on the day of trial are often ineffective)