Knight v. State
| Decision Date | 05 November 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. BB-158,BB-158 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 385 |
| Parties | Joseph KNIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Louis K. Rosenbloum and Leo A. Thomas of Levin, Warfield, Middlebrooks, Graff, Mabie, Rosenbloum & Magie, Pensacola, for appellant.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Donald K. Rudser, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant challenges the order of forfeiture of his automobile rendered by the trial court pursuant to the Florida Uniform Contraband Transportation Act (F.S. Sections 943.41-943.44). He urges reversal because he claims that his automobile was not seized for the crime alleged in the State's motion for forfeiture, no proof of ownership of the automobile was produced at trial, and that he was not convicted of the crime giving rise to the seizure of his car.
The State's motion for forfeiture alleged that appellant's 1975 Thunderbird was seized on July 4, 1975, after discovery therein of more than five grams of marijuana. The arresting officers in their affidavit related the details of appellant's July 4 arrest and asserted that appellant at that time displayed receipts for purchase of the automobile. At the forfeiture hearing, Deputy Phillips added that appellant's automobile was driven to the sheriff's office but was subsequently released. Although the officer testified that the car was released to appellant's mother, appellant testified that the officers returned the car directly to him on July 4, and that he was arrested on a different charge on August 14, 1975, at which time his car was again seized but was not returned. Defense counsel represented to the trial court at the forfeiture hearing that appellant was tried for a charge based on the August 14 arrest and was found not guilty by reason of insanity. The record indicates that some six months after the forfeiture hearing, appellant was tried on the charges based on the July 4 arrest and was found guilty by a jury of possession of marijuana and carrying a concealed weapon and not guilty by reason of insanity of aggravated assault. The record does not reveal an adjudication of guilt nor sentence. (See Ellis v. State, 1930, 100 Fla. 27, 129 So. 106).
Appellant first argues that his automobile was not seized after the July 4 arrest as claimed in the State's motion, but was returned to him, claiming that his vehicle was not seized until after the August 14 arrest. It would be unjust, according to appellant, to seize an automobile for a subsequent crime, and then to forfeit that automobile by reason of facts alleged for a previous crime.
The language of the statute refutes appellant's argument. F.S. § 943.43 provides, in pertinent part:
'Any vessel, motor vehicle, or aircraft which Has been or is being used in violation of any provision of s. 943.42 or in, upon, or by means of which any violation of said section Has taken or is taking place shall be seized and may be forfeited. * * *' (emphasis supplied)
The statute clearly contemplates that proof of past violations of the act may provide the basis for forfeiture.
Appellant's argument that no proof of ownership was adduced at trial is also without merit.
Finally, appellant contends that the State did not prove that he had been convicted of the crime giving rise to the seizure. To...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kern v. State, 96-3414
...State v. DuBose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So.2d 477 (1943); City of Miami v. Barclay, 563 So.2d 203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Knight v. State, 336 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 424 The "post-acquittal" procedure used in this case does not provide the constitutional safeguards req......
-
Marks v. State, 81-489
...actions are not admissible in civil forfeiture proceedings. State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So.2d 477 (Fla.1943). Knight v. State, 336 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976). We agree with our sister court that proof of a conviction is not necessary. Forfeiture is a civil remedy and the law does n......
-
Famiglietti v. State ex rel. Broward County, 79-1152
...943.41-943.44, Florida Statutes (1977), is a civil proceeding. State v. Dubose, 152 Fla. 304, 11 So.2d 477 (1943); Knight v. State, 336 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).2 §§ 116.25(2) and 562.40, Fla.Stat. ...
-
City of Tallahassee v. One Yellow 1979 Fiat 2-Door Sedan Florida Tag No. FVN-467, FVN-467
...943.44 is civil in nature and the record and judgment in the criminal action is not admissible in the civil proceeding. Knight v. State, 336 So.2d 385 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 424 (Fla.1977). Although Knight, supra, involved a forfeiture proceeding under Sections 943.43 ......