Libretti v. State (In re U.S. Currency Totaling ,209.00)

• Decision Date: 30 May 2012
• Docket Number: No. S–11–0243.,S–11–0243.
• Citation: 278 P.3d 234,2012 WY 75
• Parties: In the Matter of U.S. CURRENCY TOTALING $7,209.00. Joseph Libretti and Frank A. Hohlios, Appellants (Claimants), v. The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

278 P.3d 234

2012 WY 75

In the Matter of U.S. CURRENCY TOTALING $7,209.00.Joseph Libretti and Frank A. Hohlios, Appellants (Claimants),

v.The State of Wyoming, Appellee (Plaintiff).

No. S–11–0243.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 30, 2012.

Representing Appellants: Joseph Libretti and Frank A. Hohlios, pro se.

Representing Appellee: Gregory A. Phillips, Wyoming Attorney General; David L. Delicath, Deputy Attorney General.

Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT, and BURKE, JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice.

[¶ 1] This is an appeal from a forfeiture order entered by the district court against a total of $116,584.43 and certain items of personal property. The cash and personal propertywere seized from several individuals because of their alleged use in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Appellants Joseph Libretti (Libretti) and Frank Hohlios (Hohlios) claim $7,209.00 of the cash seized and appeal the forfeiture order, contending that the district court erred in holding an evidentiary hearing without ruling on their motions to dismiss or for a more definite statement, and in denying them the opportunity to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions or avail themselves of the right to a jury trial. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶ 2] Libretti and Hohlios filed a joint brief on appeal, acting pro se, and presented the following issues for review:

I. The District Court erred in not ruling on the claimants' Motion to Dismiss/Motions for more Definite Statement.

II. The District Court erred in not allowing claimants to file an Answer, conduct discovery, and file Motions for Summary Judgment.

III. The District Court erred in not ruling on, and not granting, Claimants' Motions for more Definite Statement.

IV. Claimants were wrongly denied a Jury trial.

V. If the August 10, 2011 proceeding was only an evidentiary hearing, as Plaintiff claims, and not a trial, then the Court lacked authority to enter its judgment.

VI. Claimant Frank Hohlios was unfairly denied his right to be heard at trial.

FACTS

[¶ 3] On February 16, 2011, the State of Wyoming (State) filed in district court a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture In Rem (Forfeiture Complaint). The Forfeiture Complaint alleged that $116,584.43, three vehicles, and one firearm, seized from several different individuals, had been used in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act, and that the items were therefore subject to forfeiture pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35–7–1049. Most of the persons from whom the property was seized did not respond, and default judgment was entered against those individuals. Libretti and Hohlios, who between them claimed $7,209.00 of the seized cash, both timely responded to the Forfeiture Complaint with the filing of motions to dismiss or in the alternative for a more definite statement. Hohlios filed his motion on March 28, 2011, and Libretti filed his motion on May 23, 2011.

[¶ 4] On June 1, 2011, the district court contacted Libretti by letter concerning his filing. Through that letter, the district court directed Libretti to submit a request for a hearing, as follows:

I acknowledge receipt of your letter concerning the referenced case. Your letter has been filed in the court file in the matter and a copy forwarded to [the State].

Please submit a request for setting, requesting a hearing on your motion. Upon receipt, a hearing will be set to allow you to present the matter to the Court for consideration.

[¶ 5] On June 8, 2011, the State filed a Motion for Setting on Complaint for Forfeiture, requesting that the court set the Forfeiture Complaint for hearing, and on June 10, 2011, the district court issued a Notice of Setting. The Notice of Setting notified the parties that a hearing on the Forfeiture Complaint had been set for August 10, 2011. Specifically, the Notice of Setting provided:

NOTICE IS GIVEN that Wednesday, August 10, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, is hereby set for a hearing on the Complaint for Forfeiture for one hour before Judge Catherine E. Wilking. [Emphasis in original.]

[¶ 6] On June 15, 2011, Libretti filed a motion to appear at “Motion Hearings” by telephone, and on June 20, 2011, the court issued an Order Granting Motion to Appear by Telephone, which stated, in relevant part:

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Telephonic Appearance at Motion Hearings, be, and hereby is, granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Joseph V. Libretti, Jr. shall appear at the hearing on the Complaint for Forfeiture scheduled for August 10, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. by telephone.

[¶ 7] On August 10, 2011, the district court held the evidentiary hearing on the State's Forfeiture Complaint. Libretti appeared by telephone and objected when the court called the hearing as an evidentiary hearing. Libretti informed the court that he understood that the hearing was to be a hearing on the pending motions to dismiss and not an evidentiary hearing on the merits, and that he was not prepared to present evidence. The court overruled Libretti's objections and proceeded with the evidentiary hearing on the State's Forfeiture Complaint. The State presented the testimony of Special Agents Zach Winter and Taylor Courtney of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation, and Libretti testified on his own behalf.

[¶ 8] With a cover letter dated August 16, 2011, counsel for the State provided the district court with a draft order of forfeiture and also related the following:

There is another matter I believe I must relate to the Court. After the hearing was adjourned, a man in the back of the courtroom asked when he would get his chance to be heard. I asked him who he was, and he identified himself as Frank Hohlios. Mr. Hohlios then left the room before anyone could answer him. He seemed agitated.

In order to avoid an ex parte communication, I am sending copies of this letter to Mr. Hohlios and Mr. Libretti. Please let me know if you have any questions about this.

[¶ 9] On August 26, 2011, the district court issued its Forfeiture Order. It ordered the forfeiture of the cash and personal property, based on the following findings:

This matter came before the Court on Plaintiff's Verified Complaint for Forfeiture In Rem. The Complaint covered all of the Defendant Property listed in the caption, and named several potential claimants. All but two of the potential claimants failed to answer, and the Clerk of this Court has entered their defaults. The claimants who answered are Joseph Libretti, and Frank Hohlios (on behalf of the estate of Brian Hohlios).

This Court held a hearing on the Complaint on August 10, 2011. Counsel for the Plaintiff appeared in person, and Mr. Libretti appeared by telephone. Plaintiff called two witnesses, Special Agents Zach Winter and Taylor Courtney of the Wyoming Division of Criminal Investigation. The agents testified about the investigation that led to the seizure of currency from Mr. Libretti and Mr. Hohlios, and both opined that the seized funds were proceeds from violations of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Plaintiff introduced one exhibit, which both agents identified as a “pay/owe sheet” confiscated from Brian Hohlios. Mr. Libretti testified on his own behalf.

This Court finds that the testimony of Agents Winter and Courtney was credible and persuasive. The Court further finds that Plaintiff has proven by a preponderance of the evidence that the funds seized from Mr. Libretti and Mr. Hohlios were proceeds from violations of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. Accordingly, it is the order of this Court that those funds are forfeited to the State of Wyoming in accordance with Wyo. Stat. Ann.. 35–7–1049.

[¶ 10] By letter filed August 29, 2011, Judge Wilking responded to the State's letter, with copies to Hohlios and Libretti. The letter stated:

Thank you for relating what happened in the courtroom after adjournment. Mr. Hohlios did not notify the Court that he would be present at the hearing or of his desire to be heard. There were several individuals in the courtroom when the case was called, and the Court was unaware of his presence.

[¶ 11] On September 8, 2011, Hohlios and Libretti filed their Joint Notice of Appeal from the district court's Forfeiture Order. The August 10, 2011, hearing was not reported, and the parties therefore filed statements of evidence pursuant to W.R.A.P. 3.03. On October 17, 2011, the district court issued an order stating that “for the purposes of W.R.App.P. 3.03, the statement of evidence presented by Joseph Libretti, and later clarified by The State of Wyoming is settled and approved for purposes of appeal in this matter.”

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 12] “We review the construction of rules of procedure in the same manner and under the same standards as we do statutes, i.e., they present questions of law that we review de novo.” Six v. State, 2008 WY 42, ¶ 8, 180 P.3d 912, 916 (Wyo.2008) (citing Bixler v. Oro Management, LLC, 2006 WY 140, ¶ 5, 145 P.3d 1260, 1262 (Wyo.2006)). Where action on a motion to dismiss involves a question of law, this Court's review is likewise de novo. Wilson v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs of Teton Cty., 2007 WY 42, ¶ 11, 153 P.3d 917, 921 (Wyo.2007). To the extent that this appeal presents constitutional claims, those claims are also reviewed de novo. Meyers v. State, 2005 WY 163, ¶ 8, 124 P.3d 710, 714 (Wyo.2005).

[¶ 13] This Court reviews claims of error in the denial of a motion for a more definite statement pursuant to an abuse of discretion standard. Mead v. Leo Sheep Co., 32 Wyo. 313, 318, 232 P. 511, 512 (1925). “Judicial discretion is a composite of many things, among which are conclusions drawn from objective criteria; it means a sound judgment exercised with regard to what is right under the circumstances and without doing so arbitrarily or capriciously.” Wilson v. Lucerne Canal & Power Co., 2003 WY 126, ¶ 11, 77 P.3d 412, 416 (Wyo.2003) (quoting Pasenelli v. Pasenelli, 2002 WY 159, ¶ 11, ...