Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout98-0300 miscellaneousCOMMONWEALTH Ve $554.00 U.S. CURRENCY AND ONE (1) FORD ROADSTER, VIN: A299067530 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA NO. 98-0300 MISCELLANEOUS OPINION PURSUANT TO APPELLATE RULE 1925 This is a forfeiture case filed by the Commonwealth pursuant to the Controlled Substance Forfeitures Act (42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6801 et seq. ) . Appellant, Sammy Willis, claimed ownership of the property and opposed the Petition for Forfeiture and Condemnation filed by the Commonwealth. He requested that we appoint counsel to represent him. He further requested that the proceedings be stayed pending the resolution of an appeal in the underlying criminal case. We denied both requests. A hearing was held on December 4, 1998. On December 17, 1998, we issued an order granting the Commonwealth's request forfeiture. On January 4, 1999 appellant filed a timely appeal. Unfortunately, he did not notify us of the appeal. Therefore, because of time constraints, we were unable to request a concise statement of matters complained of on appeal as authorized by Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b). This opinion is written pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925 to set forth the reasons for our various rulings. STATEMENT OF FACTS In the days leading to July 6, 1997 Agent Jeffrey Mohn of the Attorney General's Bureau of Narcotics Investigation received information from an informant that Appellant was bringing a large NO. 98-0300 MISCELLANEOUS quantity of marijuana from Texas to Pennsylvania.~ Agent Mohn and members of his task force located a 1930 Ford Roadster with Texas plates at the Super 8 Motel in Carlisle, Cumberland County, on July 6, 1998.2 Shortly thereafter, the informant received a call from Appellant indicating that he was at the Super 8 Motel in Carlisle. Appellant further advised informant that he had the marijuana.3 He requested the informant to come to the motel and to bring scales with him to weigh the drugs.4 Agent Mohn obtained a search warrant for Appellant's motel room and a search warrant for the vehicle,s The motel room was searched first. The agents seized $554.00 from the person of Appellant.6 During the search of the 1930 Ford Roadster the agents found eleven (11) separately wrapped packages of marijuana, each weighing at least one pound, hidden in various parts of the car.7 ~N.T. 8-9 2N.T. 8-9 3N.T. 10 4N.T. 10 SN.T. 11-12 6N.T. 16-18 The agents found residue and sprinkles of marijuana on an aluminum tray as well as other drug paraphernalia (N.T. 17). 7N.T. 13-16 NO. 98-0300 MISCELIJ~NEOUS On March 9, 1998 appellant entered a guilty plea to possession with intent to deliver the marijuana at 97-1338 Criminal Term.8 Pursuant to a plea agreement he was immediately sentenced to undergo imprisonment in a state correctional institution for a period of 4-8 years.9 Appellant testified at the forfeiture hearing. He stated that he actually purchased the marijuana from a truck driver in Greencastle, Pennsylvania. However, the meeting and purchase had been prearranged by a cohort of his in Texas.~° The marijuana was purchased by Appellant on credit.~ Appellant hid the marijuana in the 1930 Roadster and transported it to Carlisle for resale to the informant.~2 He stated that the $554.00 was for the expenses of his trip from Texas.~3 DISCUSSION Prior to the hearing Appellant requested that we appoint counsel. He also requested that we stay the hearing pending the outcome of his appeal. We denied both requests. At the commencement of the hearing Appellant renewed both 8Commonwealth Exhibit 9 9Commonwealth Exhibit 9 ~°N. T. 39-41 ~N.T. 42-43 ~2N.T. 38-39; 43 ~3N.T. 29; 43 NO. 98-0300 MISCELLANEOUS requests. We denied his request for counsel.~4 However, while we indicated that we were not prepared to delay the hearing, we agreed to consider delaying our decision until the PCRA petition filed in the criminal matter had been decided. At our request the Commonwealth submitted the docket of the underlying criminal case (97-1338 Criminal Term) on its Exhibit 13.~s The docket makes clear that Appellant's direct appeal in the Criminal matter was quashed.~6 It further makes clear that his PCRA petition was denied on December 16, 1998.~7 We did not issue our decision in this matter until December 17, 1998. We see no reason to delay our decision until Appellant had exhausted the appeals process since an underlying conviction is not necessary to support a civil forfeiture. Com. v. 502-504 Gordon Street, 147 Pa. Commw. 330 607 A.2d 839, (1992) affirmed 535 Pa. 515 636 A.2d 626. We now turn to the merits of the Commonwealth's Petition for Condemnation and Forfeiture. The relevant portions of the Controlled Substances Forfeitures Act provide as follows: ~4We based this decision on the recent Pa. Supreme Court decision of Com. v. $9,847.00 U.S. Currency, 550 Pa. 192, 704 A.2d 612 (1997) holding that indigent claimants in civil forfeiture matters are not entitled to appointment of counsel. ~SN.T. 35-37 ~6Commonwealth's Exhibit 13. ~TCommonwealth's Exhibit 13. We have attached an updated docket to Exhibit 13. NO. 98-0300 MISCELLANEOUS 6801. Loss of property rights to Commonwealth (a) Forfeitures generally, - The following shall be subject to forfeiture to the Commonwealth and no property right shall exist in them: (1) Ail drug paraphernalia, controlled substances or other drugs which have been manufactured, distributed, dispensed or acquired in violation of the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. (4) Ail conveyances, including aircraft, vehicles or vessels, which are used or are intended for use to transport, or in any manner to facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession or concealment of, property described in paragraph (1) or (2), (6) (i) Ail of the following: · · · (B) Money, negotiable instruments, securities or other things of value used or intended to be used to facilitate any violation of The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act. 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6801. Based upon the evidence presented at the hearing there is no question that the 1930 Roadster as well as the $554.00 in cash were subject to forfeiture under the terms of the act. ~8 ~SAppellant claims that the $554.00 was not related to any drug transaction. He argues that it was expense money for his trip to and from a car show in Carlisle. However, a specific purpose of the trip was also to buy and sell marijuana. It is not possible to separate those two purposes. Therefore, the money was to be used to facilitate the drug violation to which he pleaded guilty and is subject to forfeiture under 42 Pa. C.S.A. § 6801 (a)(6)(i). NO . 98- 0300 MISCELLANEOUS February /~ , 1999 Edward E. , J. cc: :sld Timothy M. Doherty, Esquire Sam Willis, Petitioner District Att0rney