Com. v. Ford, J., Com. v. Ford, J. No. 263 EDA 2017

In Dec. 2001 police seized $1,489 from Justin A. Ford during an arrest; the Commonwealth filed a forfeiture petition Dec. 19, 2001. A Rule to Show Cause issued and Ford did not answer. The court granted forfeiture Feb. 13, 2002.
The related criminal charges were nolle prossed in Mar. 2003 after a federal indictment; Ford did not file a motion for return of property during the criminal case or within 30 days after dismissal.
On Sept. 12, 2016 (≈13.5 years later) Ford filed a pro se Motion for Return of Property seeking $1,324. The court scheduled a Sept. 30, 2016 hearing; Ford and his 2001 attorney did not appear and the court dismissed the motion as untimely and for failure to prosecute.
Ford filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Oct. 3, 2016); the court denied return-of-property relief on Oct. 4, 2016. The docket shows the clerk served the order on Ford’s old attorney but not on Ford himself.
Ford filed a pro se motion for rehearing and several inquiries, then filed a Notice of Appeal on Dec. 13, 2016. The Superior Court initially considered quashing the untimely appeal but found a breakdown in court operations and accepted the appeal.
On the merits, the Superior Court held (1) Ford had received notice of the 2002 forfeiture (proof of service by detective), and (2) his 2016 motion for return of property was untimely under Allen (must be filed during proceedings or within 30 days after dismissal).

Issue	Ford's Argument	Commonwealth's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal / jurisdiction	Ford said he was not served with the Oct. 4, 2016 order and thus missed the 30-day appeal window	Order was final Oct. 4, 2016; appeal filed Dec. 13, 2016 (untimely)	Court declined to quash because clerk served only prior counsel despite Ford’s Oct. 3 motion for counsel — court operations breakdown excused late appeal filing
Notice of forfeiture / due process	Ford argued he never received notice of the 2002 forfeiture, so limitations never began	Commonwealth produced proof of service (Detective Lohenitz served petition and Notice to Answer Jan. 10, 2002)	Court held proof of service is conclusive absent fraud; Ford received notice of forfeiture
Timeliness of motion for return of property	Ford contended forfeiture notice never started limitations; his 2016 motion seeks return of property	Under Allen, motion must be filed during criminal proceedings or within 30 days after dismissal; Ford’s motion came 13.5 years later	Court held Ford’s motion was untimely and waived

Commonwealth v. Allen, 107 A.3d 709 (Pa. 2014) (arrestee must file return-of-property motion during criminal proceedings or within 30 days after dismissal)
Commonwealth v. Wintel, Inc., 829 A.2d 753 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (standard of review for denial of return-of-property motion)
Commonwealth v. Howard, 931 A.2d 129 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (scope of review in similar proceedings)
Commonwealth v. Braykovich, 664 A.2d 133 (Pa. Super. 1995) (extraordinary circumstances or court breakdown may excuse procedural default)
Commonwealth v. Capaldi, 112 A.3d 1242 (Pa. Super. 2015) (appellate courts lack jurisdiction to consider untimely appeals)
Seminole Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Levit, 163 A. 345 (Pa. Super. 1932) (proof of service is conclusive absent fraud)
$9,847.00 U.S. Currency, 704 A.2d 612 (Pa. 1997) (no constitutional right to appointed counsel in forfeiture proceedings)