Com. v. Mitchell
| Citation | 833 A.2d 1220 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania v. Matthew Maurice MITCHELL, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 20 October 2003 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
Steve Rice, Gettysburg, for appellant.
No appearance entered on behalf of appellee.
BEFORE: McGINLEY, Judge, and SIMPSON, Judge, and JIULIANTE, Senior Judge.
OPINION BY Judge SIMPSON.
Matthew Maurice Mitchell appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Adams County (trial court) granting the Commonwealth's motion for forfeiture of Mitchell's vehicle.1 Mitchell claims the forfeiture violated his right to be free from excessive fines under Article 1, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution ().2 We affirm.
In March 2002, Mitchell drove the vehicle to a location where he sold approximately 1.9 grams of marijuana to an undercover police officer.3 Mitchell then left the area in the vehicle. The parties agree the vehicle was used to transport the marijuana to the location. Additional marijuana purchases (not involving the vehicle) were made by an undercover officer at Mitchell's residence, which resulted in a search warrant being issued. During execution of the search warrant, police found two glass pipes and a bowl containing marijuana residue in the vehicle. The parties agree the vehicle was the only vehicle used or owned by Mitchell. Mitchell pled guilty to four counts of violating The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act (Drug Act).4 Mitchell had three prior convictions for possession with intent to deliver.
The Commonwealth thereafter moved for forfeiture of the vehicle under what is commonly known as the Forfeiture Act.5 Mitchell objected, claiming forfeiture of the vehicle constitutes an excessive fine under both the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
The trial court found in favor of the Commonwealth, holding that forfeiture of the vehicle was not an excessive fine. The trial court declined to apply our Supreme Court's holding in In re King Properties, 535 Pa. 321, 635 A.2d 128 (1993), involving forfeiture of real estate, to this forfeiture of a vehicle. This appeal followed, based solely on the Pennsylvania constitutional claim.6
The Forfeiture Act provides for forfeiture of, "All 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 [drug paraphernalia or controlled substances]." 42 Pa.C.S. § 6801(a)(4). In order to forfeit property, the Commonwealth must prove that a nexus exists between the unlawful activity and the property subject to forfeiture. Commonwealth v. One (1) 1993 Pontiac Trans Am, 809 A.2d 444 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002). Mitchell does not contest establishment of a nexus between his drug sale activities and the vehicle. Rather, he argues the vehicle forfeiture violated the excessive fines protection of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Our Supreme Court recently decided Commonwealth v. Real Prop. and Improvements, ___ Pa. ___, 832 A.2d 396 (2003). In that case the Court adopted a new test for determining whether a forfeiture violates the excessive fines protection:
We hold today that [United States v.] Bajakajian's7 gross disproportionality test applies to all punitive forfeitures regardless of the form of the underlying proceedings.
The Court referenced the Bajakajian majority's requirement that a court Real Property, at ____, 832 A.2d at 401, quoting Bajakajian, 524 U.S. at 336-37, 118 S.Ct. 2028.
The Court also referenced factors enumerated by the Bajakajian majority by which a court may measure the gravity of the offense, each of which is limited to the conduct of the defendant: the penalty imposed as compared to the maximum penalty available; whether the violation was isolated or part of a pattern of misbehavior; and, the harm resulting from the crime charged. Id., quoting Bajakajian, at 338-39, 118 S.Ct. 2028. However, our Supreme Court cautioned that no decision is made as to which of the various approaches will be adopted. Id. at n. 7, 118 S.Ct. 2028. Applying the gross disproportionality test, we note that Mitchell pled guilty to four counts of possession with intent to deliver a Schedule I substance under the Drug Act, each count of which is a felony punishable by imprisonment for no more than five years and a fine not to exceed $15,000. 35 P.S. § 780-113(f)(2). The grading of the crimes suggests the gravity of the offenses. On each count he was sentenced to 48 months of intermediate punishment with various stages of supervision, to be served concurrently, and fined $300. The current four offenses were preceded by three convictions for possession with intent to deliver. While there are no findings regarding harm resulting from the crimes, the seven total convictions related to drug trafficking raise concerns about the threat Mitchell poses to the community.
As the trial court found, the Kelley Blue Book (http://www.kbb.com) value for a 1990 Chevrolet Geo Prizm in mint condition is $1,980. The vehicle was indisputably used in one of the current offenses, and the application of the Forfeiture Act to the vehicle is uncontested. Also, it was the only vehicle available for Mitchell's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. One 2001 Toyota Camry
...880 A.2d 523 (2005). Forfeiture has been granted in instances where the requisite nexus was less tenuous than it is here. In Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 833 A.2d 1220 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), the defendant's vehicle was subject to forfeiture when it was used to transport to the point of sale. It was......
-
Commonwealth v. Burke
...supports the trial court's findings of fact and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 833 A.2d 1220 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003). 3. In challenging the sufficiently of the Commonwealth's evidence, Burke also contends the Court erred in ref......
-
Commonwealth v. Burke, 555 C.D. 2011
...trial court's findings of fact and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 833 A.2d 1220 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). 3. In challenging the sufficiently of the Commonwealth's evidence, Burke also contends the Court erred in refusing to al......
-
One Car, 1996 Dodge X-Cab Truck v. State
...to the trial court for a determination of the value of the premises, which was not in the record. Id. at 403. See also Commonwealth v. Mitchell, 833 A.2d 1220, 1222-23 Ex Parte Kelley, 766 So.2d 837 (Ala. 1999). Birmingham police searched Kelley's car and found four "Ecstasy" tablets and 6.......