One 2006 Harley Davidson Motorcycle, Vin/1HD4CAM126K461441 v. State
02-16-00450-CV
| Tex. App. | Oct 26, 2017Background
- In April 2016 Hood County officers surveilled Daniel Youngblood on suspicion of transporting/selling methamphetamine; Officer Batchelor pursued Youngblood on a black 2006 Harley-Davidson after recognizing him and observing an apparent traffic violation.
- Batchelor activated lights/siren; Youngblood accelerated in a 30 mph residential zone and did not immediately stop; he waved to Batchelor and ultimately returned to his property where officers detained him.
- During arrest officers found a clear baggie in a pocket of Youngblood’s shorts containing >2 grams of methamphetamine; Youngblood claimed the baggie was planted or that the shorts were not his.
- The State filed a civil forfeiture petition under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. ch. 59 and attached an affidavit by Officer Miller; at a bench trial the court ordered forfeiture of the motorcycle but did not specify the precise statutory ground in its oral findings.
- On appeal Youngblood challenged (1) legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting forfeiture (arguing the affidavit was inadmissible and there was no independent proof of evading arrest or a felony drug nexus) and (2) that the forfeiture violated the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.
- The court held the affidavit was not the basis of the judgment (and any pleading objection to it was waived), found other trial evidence legally sufficient to support forfeiture (evading arrest and/or felony drug possession), and found the Eighth Amendment claim was not preserved for appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal sufficiency of evidence to forfeit motorcycle | Miller’s affidavit is inadmissible/defective; no independent evidence linking motorcycle to felony evading or felony drug offense | Affidavit not needed — State produced live testimony/circumstantial evidence at trial supporting evading arrest and drug-possession nexus | Affirmed: evidence (speeding, failure to stop, pursuit, possession of >2g meth) sufficient to forfeit as contraband (evading or controlled-substance grounds) |
| Excessive Fines Clause (Eighth Amendment) | Forfeiture is an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment | Claim not raised at trial; in any event State disputes applicability | Denied as waived: Youngblood failed to preserve the Eighth Amendment challenge for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford Motor Co. v. Castillo, 444 S.W.3d 616 (Tex. 2014) (legal-sufficiency standards)
- City of Keller v. Wilson, 168 S.W.3d 802 (Tex. 2005) (standards for reviewing sufficiency and weighing evidence)
- Cent. Ready Mix Concrete Co. v. Islas, 228 S.W.3d 649 (Tex. 2007) (consideration of favorable and contrary evidence in sufficiency review)
- Russell v. Russell, 865 S.W.2d 929 (Tex. 1993) (circumstantial evidence may prove ultimate facts)
- State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783 (Tex. 1991) (substantial nexus requirement for forfeiture)
- Romero v. State, 927 S.W.2d 632 (Tex. 1996) (preservation requirement for Excessive Fines Clause in civil forfeiture)