Preston v. City of Fort Pierce, 93-1810

Citation637 So.2d 326
Decision Date25 May 1994
Docket NumberNo. 93-1810,93-1810
Parties19 Fla. L. Weekly D1158 James PRESTON, Jr., a/k/a Alphonso Coleman, Appellant, v. CITY OF FORT PIERCE, a Florida Municipal Corporation, Appellee.
CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)

Robert J. Watson of Friereson & Watson, P.A., Stuart, for appellant.

Robert V. Schwerer of Brennan, Hayskar, Jefferson, Gorman, Walker & Schwerer, Fort Pierce, for appellee.

FARMER, Judge.

The unique issue presented in this forfeiture case is whether it is an abuse of discretion to refuse to require that an incarcerated prisoner be brought before the court for the trial in a civil proceeding in which a governmental agency seeks to forfeit property in which he claims an interest. 1 We hold that under the facts and circumstances of this case the court abused its discretion, reverse the final judgment already entered and remand for a jury trial on the forfeiture complaint.

From the proffers of the parties at trial, we piece together the following relevant facts. In November 1991, the Fort Pierce police sought to serve an arrest warrant for a third party at a hotel room where that party was believed to be staying. Only appellant was there however and, according to the police, he allowed them to enter and consented to a search of the room. They found $4,638 in a trash can in the bathroom, wherein they also found a quantity of cocaine. Appellant, who initially gave a false name, ultimately pleaded no contest to the charge of possession of the cocaine "in his best interests." He was sentenced to a period of confinement with the Department of Corrections, where he resided at the time of trial.

In April 1992 the City of Fort Pierce initiated this forfeiture proceeding against the cash seized and named appellant as the owner of the cash. 2 An order to show cause was served on his attorney and required that he "appear before [the circuit court judge]" at a specified day and time "and then and there show cause why [the $4,638] should not be forfeited to the use of" the city. He responded by denying all allegations of the petition, demanding trial by jury. He also moved to continue the show cause hearing until he was released from his incarceration, saying that his release date was "several months away."

The motion to continue was denied, but the court transferred the case to a jury docket, thus postponing the day of trial. The case was then placed on the February/March 1993 trial calendar. Several weeks before the scheduled trial date, appellant filed a motion to suppress the cocaine found in the garbage container near the cash. At the same time, he also filed a motion seeking to have the court compel the sheriff to transport him from the Holmes Correctional Institution at Bonifay so that he could attend the hearing on the motion to suppress, as well as the trial. Alternatively, he asked that the trial be continued until he was released.

The motion "to transport" or continue was denied, but the case was set over to the next calendar in April 1993. When appellant moved to continue that trial for the same reason, the court again denied the motion. The trial proceeded as scheduled with appellant being personally absent. To save the government expense, his attorney waived the jury and agreed that the government could simply proffer its evidence and he would proffer appellant's defensive evidence--that the officers were on the premises merely to serve an arrest warrant on a third party who was then absent, that he was simply a visitor to the premises, that he had no knowledge or control over the cocaine, that he never gave permission for the search, that the cocaine was not his, and that the seizure of the cocaine was therefore illegal. With the court approving that procedure, the proffers were accepted and a final judgment of forfeiture was entered. Appellant timely appealed.

To understand the scope of the discretion given to the trial judge, we begin by analyzing the interests of the parties. This was a proceeding by which the city was seeking a judgment that would deprive a citizen of his ownership of cash in the amount of $4,638. The due process provision of the Florida Constitution, Article I, section 9, is specifically designed to protect against deprivations of property unless the government follows proceedings that are fair and suited to the purpose. Department of Law Enforcement v. Real Property, 588 So.2d 957 960 (Fla.1991) [Real Property ]. Hence, the primary right at issue was appellant's interest in property, which is itself protected by a secondary or procedural right to fair and apt proceedings in court to vindicate that primary right.

In Real Property, Justice Barkett explained this due process interest of a defendant in forfeiture proceedings as follows:

"In evaluating the due process concerns, it is clear that individuals have compelling interests to be heard at the initiation of forfeiture proceedings against their property rights to assure that there is probable cause to believe that a person committed a crime using that property to justify a property restraint. Property rights are among the basic substantive rights expressly protected by the Florida Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 2, Fla. Const.; see Shriners Hosps. for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64, 68 (Fla.1990) * * *. Additionally, Floridians have substantive rights to be free from excessive punishments under article I, section 17 of the Florida Constitution, and to have meaningful access to the courts pursuant to article I, section 21 of the Florida Constitution. All of these substantive rights necessarily must be protected by procedural safeguards including notice and an opportunity to be heard. Art. I, Sec. 9, Fla. Const. * * *."

588 So.2d at 964. Real Property went on to hold that the government's interest in seeking forfeiture of property used in the commission of a crime must give way to the operation of the due process provision. Conspicuously, for our purposes, the court emphasized that due process "requires * * * the opportunity for those claiming an interest in the property to be heard throughout the forfeiture process." [e.s.] 588 So.2d at 964-965.

The court thus laid down some basic principles to govern trial and pretrial proceedings in forfeiture cases. In essence, the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure govern pretrial matters such as process and discovery. The claimant is entitled to a trial by jury, and the government agency must prove that the property interest is forfeitable by clear and convincing evidence. Lack of knowledge by a person claiming an interest in the property that it was being used in the commission of a crime is a complete defense to forfeiture, and such lack of knowledge may be established by a simple preponderance of the evidence. 588 So.2d at 966-968.

It is thus beyond any serious argument that appellant, whether he was incarcerated in a governmental institution or not, had a due process right to be heard at every stage in the forfeiture proceeding. In this particular case, that right was especially important because his defense to forfeiture turned on his own testimony as to the occurrence that gave rise to his alleged participation in criminal conduct with the property involved. The facts demonstrate that the jury would have been confronted by contrary testimony from the arresting officers to support forfeiture. The ultimate issue here was very close and turned on the credibility of the witnesses. The...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • St. John v. Coisman
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 16 Noviembre 2001
    ...have substantive rights to be free from excess punishment under article I, section 17, Florida Constitution. Preston v. City of Ft. Pierce, 637 So.2d 326, 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). Generally, a verdict for punitive damages is excessive where the award bears no relation to the amount the defe......
  • Ingalsbe v. Stewart Agency, Inc., No. 4D03-2618
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 3 Marzo 2004
    ...... public `has a right to every man's evidence'."); Preston v. City of Fort Pierce, 637 So.2d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA ......
  • Qiu Feng Ke v. Gallagher
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • 22 Enero 2021
    ...a reasonable opportunity to obtain representation "and/or to make arrangements to attend the hearing"); Preston v. City of Fort Pierce, 637 So. 2d 326, 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) ("Although continuances are within the court's discretion, the exercise of that discretion is also not free form. T......
  • State v. Roundtree
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • 23 Noviembre 1994

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT