IN RE APPROXIMATELY 50,000 IN US CURRENCY, No. 2 CA-CV 98-0145.

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
• Writing for the Court: ESPINOSA, Chief.
• Citation: 196 Ariz. 626,2 P.3d 1271
• Decision Date: 30 May 2000
• Docket Number: No. 2 CA-CV 98-0145.
• Parties: In re APPROXIMATELY $50,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY.

2 P.3d 1271
196 Ariz. 626

In re APPROXIMATELY $50,000.00 IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY

No. -0145.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2, Department B.

May 30, 2000.

2 P.3d 1272

Richard M. Romley, Maricopa County Attorney By Daniel Schlittner, Phoenix, for State

Bruner & Bowman, P.C. By Sean Bruner, Tucson, for Claimant.

Janet Napolitano, Arizona Attorney General By Cameron H. Holmes, Phoenix, Amicus Curiae.

OPINION

ESPINOSA, Chief Judge.

¶ 1 The state appeals from the trial court's order granting Guadalupe Mada-Lorta's (Mada's) request for the return of approximately $50,000 in cash police had seized from her as the proceeds of illegal drug activities, contending the order must be vacated for lack of jurisdiction. Mada claims this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the state's appeal because the trial court's ruling was not an appealable order. We disagree with both contentions but find the trial court erred in ordering the currency returned, apparently on the ground the state had untimely initiated forfeiture proceedings, and therefore reverse the court's order.

Facts and Procedural History

¶ 2 In July 1997, Arizona Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers stopped a vehicle that was traveling on Interstate 10 in Pinal County. The Phoenix Police Department had informed DPS it had probable cause to believe the vehicle's occupants, Mada and her sister, possessed a large

2 P.3d 1273

amount of currency that had been obtained from the sale of illicit drugs. Officers found on Mada's person and in her purse several bundles of cash, totaling almost $50,000. Mada told them the money was not hers and that, in the past, she had been paid to transport money. The officers seized the cash and placed Mada under arrest

¶ 3 In October 1997, Mada was indicted in Maricopa County on counts of money laundering and illegally conducting an enterprise. The seized currency was impounded in Phoenix as evidence in the investigation of those offenses. Later that month, Mada filed in the Pinal County Superior Court a claim for the seized currency, citing A.R.S. § 13-4311(D)¹ and asserting she "believe[d] that the money ha[d] been seized for forfeiture." In late December, Mada filed a motion "for Return of Seized Property," claiming that the state had failed to timely pursue forfeiture proceedings after she had filed her claim for the currency and citing A.R.S. § 13-4308(B). The state responded that Mada could not unilaterally institute proceedings under the forfeiture statutes because the state had not yet seized the currency for forfeiture. The trial court conducted a hearing in early February 1998 and took the matter under advisement. Meanwhile, the Maricopa County Attorney notified Mada in late February that the currency was subject to forfeiture and that that "assertion, coupled with the [prior] seizure of the property, constitute[d] a seizure for forfeiture pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4301(8)."² In March 1998, Mada entered into a plea agreement with the state and pled guilty to second-degree money laundering. In June 1998, the Pinal County court granted, without explanation, Mada's request for the return of the currency. This appeal followed.

Appellate Jurisdiction

¶ 4 We first address Mada's claim that we lack jurisdiction to consider this matter because the order from which this appeal has been taken is nonappealable. Specifically, she argues that "an order for return of seized property under 13-4308(B) is [not] a `final judgment' . . . since it states [in that] paragraph that the State has 7 years to commence an action."³ See A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21 and 12-2101; see also Musa v. Adrian, 130 Ariz. 311, 636 P.2d 89 (1981) (jurisdiction of appellate courts generally limited to final judgments that dispose of all claims and all parties; public policy against deciding cases piecemeal). Accordingly, Mada proposes that an "order under [§ 13-]4308(B) is merely an intermediate order which dictates who will have possession of the property in question pending any final resolution of the State's decision as to whether to file a forfeiture proceeding[ ] and pending the court's final order in the case." We find Mada incorrectly frames the issue and disagree with her conclusion.

¶ 5 In ordering the state to return Mada's property, the trial court granted her the sole relief she sought. Hence, its order was the "final order in the case." See Kemble v. Porter, 88 Ariz. 417, 419, 357 P.2d 155, 156 (1960) (if, following court's order, there is "nothing left of the case to dispose of," order is final and appealable); McAlister v. Citibank (Arizona), 171 Ariz. 207, 829 P.2d 1253 (1992) (final order is one that disposes of the case, leaving no question open for the court's determination). That the state could commence forfeiture proceedings under the statutory scheme does not mandate a different result. We reject Mada's unsupported suggestion that the state cannot appeal the court's ruling in her favor until the "final resolution" of any forfeiture action, or if none were brought, the year 2003, seven years

2 P.3d 1274

after the police determined that she illegally possessed the currency. We conclude that the order is appealable and that we therefore have jurisdiction of this matter.⁴ See Bothell v. Two Point Acres, Inc., 192 Ariz. 313, 965 P.2d 47 (1998). Thus, we address the issues the state raises on appeal

Forfeiture Jurisdiction

¶ 6 The state contends that only it, and not persons with an interest in seized property, can commence forfeiture proceedings under Arizona's forfeiture statutes. A.R.S. §§ 13-4301 through 13-4315. It further asserts that it had not yet commenced forfeiture proceedings on the currency it had seized from Mada, by specifically seizing it for forfeiture, at the time she brought the action requesting its return. Accordingly, the state argues, because Mada could not unilaterally commence a forfeiture proceeding and because the state had not yet done...