In Re: The Commitment of Mark Petersimes--Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County

SUPREME COURT CASES

Laws-info.com » Cases » Texas » 9th District Court of Appeals » 2003 » In Re: The Commitment of Mark Petersimes--Appeal from 9th District Court of Montgomery County

State: Texas

Court: Texas Northern District Court

Docket No: 09-03-00087-CV

Case Date: 11/20/2003

Plaintiff: One 1995 Dodge Pickup, Bearing Texas License Plate #2NJ-TM, V.I.N., 1B7HC16Y9SS379939

Defendant: The State of Texas--Appeal from 18th District Court of Johnson County

Preview:One 1995 Dodge Pickup, Bearing Texas License Plate #2NJ-TM, V.I.N., 1B7HC16Y9SS379939 v. The State of Texas--Appeal from 18th District Court of Johnson County
MAJORITY | MAJORITY IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-02-135-CV

ONE 1995 DODGE PICKUP, BEARING TEXAS LICENSE PLATE #2NJ-TM, V.I.N., 1B7HC16Y9SS379939, Appellant v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 18th District Court Johnson County, Texas Trial Court # C200100226 OPINION This is an appeal from a forfeiture proceeding in which Robert Edward Anderson III s 1995 Dodge pickup truck was forfeited to the state. Anderson argues that the forfeiture was improper because there was no evidence that the truck was contraband. Because we find that the evidence supporting the judgment created no more than a mere surmise or suspicion of the truck s involvement in illegal activity, we agree that there is no evidence. We will reverse the judgment. BACKGROUND
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7228.html[8/20/2013 7:22:47 PM]

On June 18, 2001, police in Burleson, Texas were conducting surveillance on a house, based on an informant s tip. They smelled an odor of ether associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine coming from the house. Anderson s 1995 Dodge pickup was parked outside the house. Police obtained a warrant to search both the house and the truck. While searching the truck, officers found two funnels, multiple empty blister packs of over-the-counter ephedrine or pseudoephedrine, // and unspecified drug paraphernalia. Materials, substances, and equipment that could be used as a drug lab were found in the house, including additional funnels similar to those found in the truck. At trial, Officer Feucht, who obtained and executed the search warrant, testified that the materials and equipment found in the house and in the truck are commonly used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. No drugs or drug paraphernalia were discovered on Anderson, who was found exiting the house and who was searched. FORFEITURE Forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 59.05(b) (Vernon 2003). The state must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the property is subject to forfeiture. Id. Only contraband is subject to forfeiture. Id. 59.02(a). Contraband includes property of any nature, including real, personal, tangible, or intangible, that is used or intended to be used in the commission of any felony under Chapter 481, Health and Safety Code (Texas Controlled Substances Act). Id. art. 59.01(2)(B)(i). Methamphetamine is a controlled substance that is classified in Penalty Group I of the Health and Safety Code, and it is a felony offense to manufacture, deliver, or possess with intent to deliver methamphetamine. // Tex. Health & Safety Code Ann. 481.101(6), 481.112 (Vernon 1992 & Supp. 2003). In forfeiture proceedings, the state must show probable cause for seizing a person s property. Tex. Const. art. I, 9; State v. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d 783, 784 (Tex. 1991). To show probable cause the state must establish a reasonable belief that a substantial connection exists between the property to be forfeited and the criminal activity defined by the statute. $11,014.00, 820 S.W.2d at 784. This substantial connection may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Id. at 785. However, the circumstances must be proven by direct evidence. Burlington-Rock Island R. Co. v. Pruitt, 160 S.W.2d 105, 108 (Tex. Civ. App. Waco 1942, writ ref d). // STANDARD OF REVIEW When considering a no-evidence question, we may consider only the evidence and inferences tending to support the judgment and must disregard all evidence and inferences to the contrary. $11,014, 820 S.W.2d at 784. If there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support the finding, the no-evidence challenge fails. Browning-Ferris, Inc. v. Reyna, 865 S.W.2d 925, 928 (Tex. 1993). To rise above a scintilla, the evidence offered to prove a vital fact must do more than create a mere surmise or suspicion of its existence. Lozano v. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d 141, 145 (Tex. 2001). Meager circumstantial evidence from which equally plausible but opposite inferences may be drawn is speculative and legally insufficient to support a finding. Walmart Stores, Inc. v. Gonzales, 968 S.W.2d 934, 936 (Tex. 1998). ANALYSIS Vehicle forfeiture cases ordinarily involve evidence of a more direct connection to the alleged crime than the evidence presented in this case. E.g., 1991 Nissan Pickup, License No. 1307YU, VIN No. 1N6SD11S6MC365674 v. State, 896 S.W.2d 394 (Tex. App. Eastland 1995, no writ) (truck used to transport heroin from Mexico was used in commission of offense); Forty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Dollars US Currency ($47,200.00) v. State, 883 S.W.2d 302 (Tex. App. El Paso 1994, writ denied) (vehicles used to transport marijuana were used in commission of a felony). In fact, there is no direct evidence that Anderson s truck was used in the manufacture, delivery, or possession of methamphetamine. Therefore, we must consider the proffered circumstantial evidence to determine if it creates more than a mere surmise or suspicion that Anderson s truck was used in connection with illegal activity. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d at 145. According to Officer Feucht, Anderson was present at the house from which Feucht smelled ether, an odor associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine. Feucht testified that the search of the house produced materials and equipment that were being used or could be used to manufacture methamphetamine. Anderson s 1995 Dodge pickup, which was parked outside the house, was also searched. In it, Feucht found (1) multiple, empty blister-packs of
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7228.html[8/20/2013 7:22:47 PM]

ephedrine, a chemical precursor to methamphetamine, (2) unspecified drug paraphernalia, and (3) two funnels, like the ones found in the house. He noted that both the funnels and ephedrine could be used in the manufacture of illegal drugs. Officer Feucht: What I saw and what I observed being found there, there was some funnels on the front seat of the pickup and there were numerous empty blister packs of tablets containing either ephedrine or pseudoephedrine in them as well as some drug paraphernalia. State s Attorney:Let me stop you right there. Would the funnels, would those be apparatus or equipment, based upon your training, knowledge and experience, would be used in the manufacture of illegal narcotics? Officer Feucht: Yes, they would be.

... State s Attorney:Is it your opinion based upon your training, knowledge and experience as a peace officer that the substances contained in those blister packets, that ephedrine and pseudoephedrine, would be used in the manufacture of illegal narcotics? Officer Feucht: Yes, they are a chemical precursor.

Notably, Feucht did not testify that the drug paraphernalia was or could be used to manufacture illegal narcotics. We note first that the record is silent as to how Anderson s truck was used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. And there is no evidence of when any item found in the truck was placed there, i.e. before the truck arrived at the house or after it was parked there. As to the ephedrine, Officer Feucht testified that he found multiple, empty blister packages of this over-the-counter decongestant. To infer that Anderson s truck was used to bring ephedrine to the house, would first require a presumption the ephedrine itself was once in the truck as well. But we cannot tell from the record if the ephedrine itself was ever in the truck, or if the packaging alone was discarded there. Similarly, there are many reasons, unrelated to manufacturing methamphetamine, why a driver might keep a funnel in his truck. The trial judge reached a similar conclusion, before he rendered his verdict of forfeiture: [O]f course, we all know whose truck it was because everybody admits that and I don t have any problem in finding by a preponderance of the evidence that there was some drug manufacturing going on at that house. Of course, the question is, is whether that truck was involved in that. I m not too concerned about the funnels because I don t even there s not any evidence about what they were or how they could be used and I m not too concerned about the empty, what, blister packs. . . . The judge was, however, concerned about the drug paraphernalia. He concluded: But now I thought the Officer also testified that there was drug paraphernalia found in the truck in addition to those other two items and if I m correct on that, I, of course, find that the truck was used in the manufacture of controlled substances and will forfeit it. Drug paraphernalia could mean materials used to manufacture drugs or materials employed to actually use the drugs, like pipes or needles. And both inferences about the meaning of the words are equally plausible. We remain cognizant of our duty not to indulge inferences contrary to the judgment when conducting a legal sufficiency review. $11,014, 820 S.W.2d at 784. But the words more than a scintilla are not without meaning. We find the circumstantial evidence in this case to be meager, speculative, and legally insufficient. Walmart Stores, 968 S.W.2d at 936. It does no more than create a mere surmise or suspicion that Anderson s pickup may have been used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Lozano, 52 S.W.3d at 145. It is no more than a scintilla of evidence to support a finding that the 1995 Dodge pickup truck was contraband, and we, therefore, sustain Anderson s sole issue. Id.; Browning-Ferris, 865 S.W.2d at 928. CONCLUSION

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7228.html[8/20/2013 7:22:47 PM]

BILL VANCE Justice

Before Chief Justice Davis, Justice Vance, and Justice Gray (Justice Gray dissenting) Reversed and rendered Opinion delivered and filed July 30, 2003 [CV06]

file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/opinions/PDFs1/7228.html[8/20/2013 7:22:47 PM]

Download 7228.pdf