Matthews v. State, CV–15–510
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. CV–15–510,CV–15–510 |
| Citation | 477 S.W.3d 539 |
| Parties | Reggie Matthews and $412,890 in United States Currency ,Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
James W. Harris, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Reggie Matthews appeals from an order of the Mississippi County Circuit Court that denied his claim for the return of $412,890 seized from the trunk of his car during a narcotics investigation involving both federal and state law enforcement. On appeal, Mr. Matthews argues that the trial court's decision should be reversed because it was founded upon erroneous findings of fact and conclusions of law. We affirm.
In 2011, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was involved in an investigation related to Randy Caruthers and his involvement in the distribution of large amounts of cocaine and marijuana in southeast Missouri and northeast Arkansas. Special FBI Agent Larry Bruns was in charge of the operation. According to an affidavit of Agent Bruns, appellant Reggie Matthews was identified as a close associate of Mr. Caruthers. Several officers of the Arkansas Second Judicial Drug Task Force were deputized as special federal law enforcement officers and joined in the investigation.
Law enforcement agents obtained information that Mr. Caruthers was preparing to deliver approximately $416,000 to his drug supplier, and Mr. Matthews was suspected to be delivering the money. Working under the direction of FBI Agent Bruns, local police officers stopped a car being driven by Mr. Matthews on June 2, 2011. Mr. Matthews initially fled from the officers, but he eventually stopped the car. He was arrested and later charged with fleeing and aggravated assault. During a search of the trunk of appellant's car, the police found a duffle bag containing $412,890 in vacuum-sealed packages. According to the officers' affidavits, Mr. Matthews disclaimed knowledge of the money and told the police that it was not his. The currency was seized by local law enforcement officers who had been federally deputized as agents of the Second Judicial Drug Task Force.
Eight days later, on June 10, 2011, the State filed a petition in Mississippi County Circuit Court to transfer the seized property to the FBI for forfeiture proceedings under federal law. Also on June 10, 2011, the Mississippi County Circuit Court entered an order transferring the property to the FBI pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–64–505(d) (Supp. 2011), which provides:
In the trial court's transfer order (hereinafter referred to as the "initial transfer order"), the state trial court stated that it reasonably appeared that the nature of the seizure and forfeiture would be better pursued under federal law, thus complying with section 5–64–505(d)(2). The FBI thereafter obtained possession of the currency.
Four months later, on October 14, 2011, Mr. Matthews filed in Mississippi County Circuit Court a motion to set aside the initial transfer order. In his motion, Mr. Matthews asserted that he was not given notice of the petition to transfer the case to federal court, and thus that he had no opportunity to respond to the motion. Mr. Matthews argued that the initial order transferring the property to the FBI was void, and he demanded the immediate return of the seized currency. In response to Mr. Matthews's motion, the State asserted that, under the terms of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–64–505(d), there is no requirement that a person receive notice of a transfer petition, nor is there any requirement that he be given an opportunity to contest the transfer. Mr. Matthews subsequently filed several more motions with the Mississippi County Circuit Court, including a motion for summary judgment, motion to declare Arkansas Code Annotated section 5–64–505(d) unconstitutional, and two motions to dismiss.
Almost two years later, on March 13, 2013, the Mississippi County Circuit Court entered an order granting Mr. Matthews's motion to set aside the initial transfer order (hereinafter referred to as the "subsequent transfer order"), stating that a hearing shall be granted on the petition to transfer. The trial court stated its belief that the rules of civil procedure applied to the transfer petition, and it noted that Mr. Matthews was not given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the initial transfer order being entered. While the State had asserted that Mr. Matthews may not be the owner of the seized property and therefore may lack standing, the trial court indicated that it could not determine that issue without evidence and a hearing. In the subsequent transfer order, the trial court denied Mr. Matthews's motion for summary judgment and also denied his motion to declare the transfer statute unconstitutional. The trial court did not make any ruling on Mr. Matthews's motions to dismiss.1
During the period of time between when the money had been transferred to the FBI pursuant to the initial transfer order (June 10, 2011) and the entry of the subsequent transfer order (March 13, 2013) in state court, the $412,8902 was in possession of federal agents and forfeiture proceedings had commenced in federal court. On July 29, 2011, the FBI sent a letter to Mr. Matthews informing him of the factual and legal basis for the seizure, and advising him that if he wished to contest the seizure in federal court he must file a claim of ownership with the FBI by September 2, 2011. On August 29, 2011, Mr. Matthews filed with the FBI a claim of ownership, contesting the forfeiture of the currency.
More than a year later, on December 3, 2012, the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri, Southeastern District (hereinafter referred to as the "federal trial court"), entered a preliminary order of forfeiture in favor of the United States. The preliminary forfeiture was based on four criminal defendants' admissions that the currency constituted proceeds of the offenses charged, after the four defendants entered guilty-plea agreements forfeiting any interest they may have had in the currency.3 On February 21, 2013, the United States Attorney sent Mr. Matthews the preliminary forfeiture order advising that Mr. Matthews had thirty days to assert a legal interest in the property by filing a third-party petition in federal court.
On March 22, 2013, Mr. Matthews filed in federal court a third-party petition for return of the $412,890. Mr. Matthews asserted in his federal pleadings multiple arguments, including that the Arkansas initial transfer order had been subsequently vacated by the Arkansas trial court, that the initial transfer order was void, and that because the initial transfer order was invalid the State retained jurisdiction and the federal court was without jurisdiction over the funds. The United States Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the third-party petition for return of the property, arguing that Mr. Matthews lacked standing to challenge the forfeiture.
On August 23, 2013, the United States District Court entered an order dismissing Mr. Matthews's third-party complaint. The federal trial court ruled that it had jurisdiction over the matter...
To continue reading
Request your trial