People v. Pena
2017 IL App (2d) 151203
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- On April 27, 2014, police seized Isidro Pena’s van, $8,986, and two cellphones after arresting him for money laundering; Pena gave a California address at arrest.
- Pena was released on reduced bond with conditions to remain in Illinois and report to pretrial services; he reported living with his sister in Glendale Heights and attended all court dates.
- The State sought administrative forfeiture for the van and cash and mailed notice by certified mail to Pena’s California address; one certified-mail return was returned “UNCLAIMED UNABLE TO FORWARD,” and the State later represented that tracking showed the notice was left at that address.
- Pena’s criminal charges were later nol-prossed; he then filed a motion for return of property asserting he never received constitutionally adequate notice of forfeiture.
- The trial court denied the motion, finding statutory-compliant notice to Pena’s last known (arrest) address and placing the burden on Pena to notify the State of any address change. Pena appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to hear Pena’s motion (vs. administrative review) | State: Pena’s challenge was untimely administrative-review and thus court lacked jurisdiction | Pena: Motion for return of property is a justiciable criminal-court matter | Court: Circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the motion; substantive jurisdictional limits depend on whether notice was constitutionally adequate |
| Whether notice mailed to Pena’s arrest (California) address satisfied due process | State: Statutory service to the arrest address suffices; no duty to search further because Pena was not jailed | Pena: State knew or should have known he couldn’t receive mail at that address (release conditions requiring him to remain in Illinois and report to pretrial services) | Court: Statutory compliance alone was insufficient; under the circumstances the State should have taken additional steps to ascertain and serve Pena’s actual Illinois address; notice was constitutionally inadequate |
| Appropriate remedy for unconstitutional notice | State: (argued generally for upholding forfeiture if service statutory) | Pena: Vacate forfeiture and return property | Court: Vacated denial of motion and remanded so Pena may file a verified claim with the State’s Attorney within 45 days of mandate; did not decide substantive entitlement to property |
Key Cases Cited
- Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (same standard for notice)
- Robinson v. Hanrahan, 409 U.S. 38 (forfeiture notice to home insufficient where state knew claimant was in jail)
- People v. Smith, 275 Ill. App. 3d 844 (mailing to home insufficient when defendant was incarcerated; address was ascertainable)
- In re Forfeiture of $2,354.00 U.S. Currency, 326 Ill. App. 3d 9 (statutory mailing insufficient where state knew or should have known correct address; additional effort required)
- People ex rel. Devine v. $30,700.00 U.S. Currency, 199 Ill. 2d 142 (distinguishes cases where state did not know claimant’s location)
- Belleville Toyota, Inc. v. Toyota Motors Sales, U.S.A., Inc., 199 Ill. 2d 325 (circuit courts have broad jurisdiction over justiciable matters)