Orange v. State, 319 Ga. App. 516

The state filed a verified in rem forfeiture complaint under OCGA § 16-13-49 seeking the forfeiture of a 1998 Ford Crown Victoria, a 1990 Cadillac Brougham, and $308, naming Rudolph Orange as an owner.
Orange, represented by counsel, answered asserting ownership and sought return of the property.
The trial court conducted a hearing and entered an order declaring all named property contraband and forfeited to the State.
Orange appealed pro se, but his brief violated multiple briefing rules and transcript was not included in the record.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that civil forfeiture under OCGA § 16-13-49 does not require a conviction, and that due process was not violated by the absence of Orange at the hearing given he was represented by counsel.
The panel noted the lack of transcript but found the record sufficient to affirm the trial court’s factual findings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether civil forfeiture under OCGA 16-13-49 requires a conviction.	Orange argues criminal forfeiture requires conviction.	State contends in rem civil forfeiture does not require a conviction.	No conviction required for in rem forfeiture.
Whether the absence of a stipulation by Orange voids the forfeiture.	Orange claims property was forfeited by stipulation he did not make.	State asserts a hearing was held and forfeiture ordered based on evidence; no stipulation occurred.	No reversible error; record shows a hearing and forfeiture order.
Whether conducting the hearing in Orange's absence violated due process.	Orange asserts lack of presence deprived him of opportunity to defend.	State notes Orange was represented by counsel and proceedings occurred with evidence and argument presented.	Due process not violated; presence not required where represented and hearing conducted.
Whether the record was sufficient to review given no transcript was included.	Orange relies on an incomplete record to challenge findings.	State maintains findings are supported by the record; lack of transcript does not compel reversal.	Record supported the trial court’s findings; no reversal required.

Aldalassi v. Drummond, 223 Ga. App. 192 (1996) (briefs and procedural rules considerations)
Salazar v. State, 256 Ga. App. 50 (2002) (briefing rule compliance and appellate review)
Leone v. Green Tree Servicing, 311 Ga. App. 702 (2011) (briefing rule compliance and review standards)
Portee v. State of Ga., 277 Ga. App. 536 (2006) (record completeness and preservation on appeal)
Murphy v. State, 267 Ga. 120 (1996) (purpose of forfeiture statutes)