One 1979 Jeep Vin No. J9f93eh055249 v. State

713 S.W.2d 693, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 501, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 559
CourtTexas Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 2, 1986
DocketNo. C-5157
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 713 S.W.2d 693 (One 1979 Jeep Vin No. J9f93eh055249 v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Texas Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
One 1979 Jeep Vin No. J9f93eh055249 v. State, 713 S.W.2d 693, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 501, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 559 (Tex. 1986).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an automobile forfeiture. 702 S.W.2d 781. The issue raised is whether the Texas Controlled Substances Act requires an aggravated offense involving a drug transaction as a predicate to forfeiture when the owner of the conveyance is in charge of the conveyance at the time of delivery or sale of the drug.

The trial court found that the owner of the vehicle sold marijuana from the vehicle on November 9,1984. The State stipulated that the amount of marijuana involved subjected the vehicle owner to misdemeanor charges only. Holding that the offense violated the Texas Controlled Substances Act, TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 4476-15, § 5.03(a)(5), the trial court ordered the vehicle forfeited. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

At the time of the offense, section 5.03(a)(5) read:

(a) The following are subject to forfeiture as authorized by this subchapter:
(5) Any conveyance, including ... vehicles, that is used or intended for use to transport or in any manner facilitate the transportation, sale, receipt, possession, concealment, or delivery of property ..., provided that no conveyance used by any other person shall be forfeited under this sub-chapter unless the owner or other . person in charge of the conveyance is a consenting party or privy to an aggravated offense under this Act....

Act of June 17, 1983, ch. 425, § 18, 1983 TEX.GEN.LAWS 2361, 2394, amended by Act of June 3, 1985, ch. 227, § 11, 1985 TEX.SESS.LAW SERV. 1861 (Vernon).

This court recently held in 1980 Pontiac v. State of Texas, 707 S.W.2d 881 (Tex.1986) that “the legislature intended the forfeiture provision to be used only when an aggravated offense is committed....” 1980 Pontiac at 883. There was no aggravated offense in the instant case.

We grant writ of error and pursuant to TEX.R.CIV.P. 483, without hearing oral ar[694]*694gument, reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and render judgment that the State of Texas take nothing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Lot 10, Pine Haven Estates
900 S.W.2d 400 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1995)
Murphree v. State
854 S.W.2d 193 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
713 S.W.2d 693, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 501, 1986 Tex. LEXIS 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-1979-jeep-vin-no-j9f93eh055249-v-state-tex-1986.