Judgment rendered February 25, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 56,732-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
$12,039 U.S. CURRENCY SEIZED Defendant-Appellant FROM DELANCEY R. KENT
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2021-1504
Honorable B. Scott Leehy, Judge
DELANCEY R. KENT In Proper Person
ROBERT S. TEW Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
G. SCOTT MOORE Assistant District Attorney
Before STEPHENS, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ. STEPHENS, J.,
This civil appeal arises from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish
of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, the Honorable B. Scott Leehy, Judge,
presiding. The defendant, Delancey R. Kent, filed this pro se appeal
following the trial court’s judgment granting the State’s motion for summary
judgment for seizure for forfeiture pursuant to La. R.S. 40:2610. For the
following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 20, 2021, the State of Louisiana filed an application for
warrant of seizure for forfeiture, alleging that Kent had engaged in conduct
giving rise to forfeiture. Agent Tim Klick of the Metro Narcotics Unit
alleged in his supporting affidavit that Kent was taken into custody
following his failure to stop after the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office had
initiated a traffic stop. While in pursuit of Kent, officers observed him throw
something out of the passenger window of the vehicle Kent was driving.
Kent later admitted to the officers that he had discarded a small plastic bag
of methamphetamine; a bag containing four grams of methamphetamine was
later recovered from the vicinity. Following Kent’s arrest, a check of his
criminal history revealed that he had been arrested several times for
distribution of narcotics.
Klick’s affidavit further stated that, after they got Kent’s verbal
consent to search the vehicle, officers located $12,039.00 on the front seat of
the vehicle, proceeds consistent with street level narcotics sales. Also, Kent
stated throughout the investigation that he did not have a job and had no
means by which he could earn money. Agent Klick further alleged in his
affidavit that Kent gave several stories as to the source of the money. On May 20, 2021, the trial court issued a warrant of seizure for forfeiture
allowing the seizure of $12,039.00.
On July 22, 2021, the State filed its petition for forfeiture alleging that
the $12,039.00 was obtained in exchange for a controlled substance in
violation of La. R.S. 40:961 et seq. and/or was intended to be furnished in
exchange for a controlled substance. Kent filed his answer on September
27, 2021, claiming that the $12,039.00 was from his employment doing odd
jobs, from stimulus check monies, and out of his retirement fund.
Approximately three years later, on July 16, 2024, the State filed a
motion to compel, complaining that there were inadequacies in Kent’s
responses to the State’s discovery and that Kent had neither filed a
supplement to his responses nor had provided any response to subsequent
discovery.
At a hearing held on October 29, 2024, a stipulation was entered by
the parties that in the event that Kent failed to produce additional relevant
responses to the State’s discovery on or before December 2, 2024, Kent
would be barred from further introducing any testimony or evidence of any
money he may have received beyond the following: 1) income derived from
his retirement account as evidenced in the Fidelity document for the period
of January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018; 2) income referenced in his
IRS transcripts for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019.
The parties reconvened on December 2, 2024, at which time it was
admitted that no relevant documentation had been produced by Kent, and the
interrogatories had failed to specifically identify the employment Kent had
alleged or the sources of income Kent had alleged existed that resulted in
him obtaining the $12,039.00. The trial court issued an order on December 2 2, 2024, setting forth that Kent had failed to produce additional relevant
responses to the State’s discovery, and that Kent was barred from further
introducing any testimony or evidence of any money he may have received
beyond what was referenced in the parties’ stipulation.
On March 12, 2025, the State filed a motion for summary judgment,
claiming that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that, as a
matter of law, the State is entitled to summary judgment based on Kent’s
failure to comply with the provision of La. R.S. 40:2610 and the trial court’s
order precluding Kent from introducing testimony or evidence of money he
may have received after December 31, 2019. Kent filed an opposition to the
motion for summary judgment on April 11, 2025, claiming that there were
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the currency seized was a drug
asset. Kent claimed in an affidavit executed on April 11, 2025, that the
money sought to be forfeited was his life’s savings accumulated prior to the
May 2021 seizure. He also alleged that he was employed in the years prior
to the seizure in various odd jobs that paid cash, such as lawn mowing and
car washing, which were not reflected in his IRS earnings. He urged that the
money seized had no nexus or connection to any illegal activity.
The State objected to Kent’s affidavit, arguing that it was barred by
the trial court’s December 2, 2024, order. At the summary judgment hearing
held on June 10, 2025, the State reiterated that it was entitled to summary
judgment and that Kent’s affidavit was improper due to his failure to
produce further evidence to show the source of the currency at issue. In the
judgment signed on June 24, 2025, the trial court granted the State’s motion
for summary judgment and preempted Kent from further participation in the
drug asset forfeiture proceedings. The court granted the State the right to 3 proceed with an application of order of forfeiture pursuant to La. R.S.
40:2615(A). Kent has appealed from this adverse judgment.
DISCUSSION
In his pro se brief,1 Kent argues that he has newly discovered evidence
that was not available during the forfeiture proceedings.2 He urges that the
document included in his appeal, Exhibit 1, corroborates his claims that the
$12,039.00 is an accumulation of funds earned through odd jobs, received as
stimulus check payments, and withdrawn from retirement accounts or
investments. Kent maintains that the State failed to meet its burden in
showing that the value of the contraband was intended for commercial sale
and that the seizure was constitutional. He states that the incident took place
during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in him being laid off and having
to perform freelance work. He contends that the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution protects him from this unreasonable, excessive
seizure. He requests that this Court reopen the case, and he states that he is
willing to reconcile with 75% of the currency being returned as adequate to
the value of the contraband seized.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Judgment rendered February 25, 2026. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 2166, La. C.C.P.
No. 56,732-CA
COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA
*****
STATE OF LOUISIANA Plaintiff-Appellee
versus
$12,039 U.S. CURRENCY SEIZED Defendant-Appellant FROM DELANCEY R. KENT
Appealed from the Fourth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ouachita, Louisiana Trial Court No. 2021-1504
Honorable B. Scott Leehy, Judge
DELANCEY R. KENT In Proper Person
ROBERT S. TEW Counsel for Appellee District Attorney
G. SCOTT MOORE Assistant District Attorney
Before STEPHENS, ROBINSON, and HUNTER, JJ. STEPHENS, J.,
This civil appeal arises from the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish
of Ouachita, State of Louisiana, the Honorable B. Scott Leehy, Judge,
presiding. The defendant, Delancey R. Kent, filed this pro se appeal
following the trial court’s judgment granting the State’s motion for summary
judgment for seizure for forfeiture pursuant to La. R.S. 40:2610. For the
following reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 20, 2021, the State of Louisiana filed an application for
warrant of seizure for forfeiture, alleging that Kent had engaged in conduct
giving rise to forfeiture. Agent Tim Klick of the Metro Narcotics Unit
alleged in his supporting affidavit that Kent was taken into custody
following his failure to stop after the Ouachita Parish Sheriff’s Office had
initiated a traffic stop. While in pursuit of Kent, officers observed him throw
something out of the passenger window of the vehicle Kent was driving.
Kent later admitted to the officers that he had discarded a small plastic bag
of methamphetamine; a bag containing four grams of methamphetamine was
later recovered from the vicinity. Following Kent’s arrest, a check of his
criminal history revealed that he had been arrested several times for
distribution of narcotics.
Klick’s affidavit further stated that, after they got Kent’s verbal
consent to search the vehicle, officers located $12,039.00 on the front seat of
the vehicle, proceeds consistent with street level narcotics sales. Also, Kent
stated throughout the investigation that he did not have a job and had no
means by which he could earn money. Agent Klick further alleged in his
affidavit that Kent gave several stories as to the source of the money. On May 20, 2021, the trial court issued a warrant of seizure for forfeiture
allowing the seizure of $12,039.00.
On July 22, 2021, the State filed its petition for forfeiture alleging that
the $12,039.00 was obtained in exchange for a controlled substance in
violation of La. R.S. 40:961 et seq. and/or was intended to be furnished in
exchange for a controlled substance. Kent filed his answer on September
27, 2021, claiming that the $12,039.00 was from his employment doing odd
jobs, from stimulus check monies, and out of his retirement fund.
Approximately three years later, on July 16, 2024, the State filed a
motion to compel, complaining that there were inadequacies in Kent’s
responses to the State’s discovery and that Kent had neither filed a
supplement to his responses nor had provided any response to subsequent
discovery.
At a hearing held on October 29, 2024, a stipulation was entered by
the parties that in the event that Kent failed to produce additional relevant
responses to the State’s discovery on or before December 2, 2024, Kent
would be barred from further introducing any testimony or evidence of any
money he may have received beyond the following: 1) income derived from
his retirement account as evidenced in the Fidelity document for the period
of January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2018; 2) income referenced in his
IRS transcripts for the years 2017, 2018, and 2019.
The parties reconvened on December 2, 2024, at which time it was
admitted that no relevant documentation had been produced by Kent, and the
interrogatories had failed to specifically identify the employment Kent had
alleged or the sources of income Kent had alleged existed that resulted in
him obtaining the $12,039.00. The trial court issued an order on December 2 2, 2024, setting forth that Kent had failed to produce additional relevant
responses to the State’s discovery, and that Kent was barred from further
introducing any testimony or evidence of any money he may have received
beyond what was referenced in the parties’ stipulation.
On March 12, 2025, the State filed a motion for summary judgment,
claiming that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that, as a
matter of law, the State is entitled to summary judgment based on Kent’s
failure to comply with the provision of La. R.S. 40:2610 and the trial court’s
order precluding Kent from introducing testimony or evidence of money he
may have received after December 31, 2019. Kent filed an opposition to the
motion for summary judgment on April 11, 2025, claiming that there were
genuine issues of material fact as to whether the currency seized was a drug
asset. Kent claimed in an affidavit executed on April 11, 2025, that the
money sought to be forfeited was his life’s savings accumulated prior to the
May 2021 seizure. He also alleged that he was employed in the years prior
to the seizure in various odd jobs that paid cash, such as lawn mowing and
car washing, which were not reflected in his IRS earnings. He urged that the
money seized had no nexus or connection to any illegal activity.
The State objected to Kent’s affidavit, arguing that it was barred by
the trial court’s December 2, 2024, order. At the summary judgment hearing
held on June 10, 2025, the State reiterated that it was entitled to summary
judgment and that Kent’s affidavit was improper due to his failure to
produce further evidence to show the source of the currency at issue. In the
judgment signed on June 24, 2025, the trial court granted the State’s motion
for summary judgment and preempted Kent from further participation in the
drug asset forfeiture proceedings. The court granted the State the right to 3 proceed with an application of order of forfeiture pursuant to La. R.S.
40:2615(A). Kent has appealed from this adverse judgment.
DISCUSSION
In his pro se brief,1 Kent argues that he has newly discovered evidence
that was not available during the forfeiture proceedings.2 He urges that the
document included in his appeal, Exhibit 1, corroborates his claims that the
$12,039.00 is an accumulation of funds earned through odd jobs, received as
stimulus check payments, and withdrawn from retirement accounts or
investments. Kent maintains that the State failed to meet its burden in
showing that the value of the contraband was intended for commercial sale
and that the seizure was constitutional. He states that the incident took place
during the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in him being laid off and having
to perform freelance work. He contends that the Eighth Amendment of the
United States Constitution protects him from this unreasonable, excessive
seizure. He requests that this Court reopen the case, and he states that he is
willing to reconcile with 75% of the currency being returned as adequate to
the value of the contraband seized.
In reply, the State asserts that the trial court did not commit reversible
error when it found that Kent failed to comply with the provisions in La.
R.S. 40:2610(B)(4) and (5) and granted summary judgment in its favor,
1 Although Kent’s brief is not compliant with the URCA, this Court reads pro se filings indulgently and will attempt to discern the thrust of his position on appeal and the relief he seeks. Pentecost v. Grassi, 56,113 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So. 3d 1022; Linn v. Ouachita Parish Police Jury, 55,480 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/10/24), 383 So. 3d 1171; Fobbs v. CompuCom Sys., Inc., 55,173 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/27/23), 371 So. 3d 1146; Magee v. Williams, 50,726 (La. App. 2 Cir. 6/22/16), 197 So. 3d 265. 2 Kent’s pro se brief was not timely filed. Furthermore, as pointed out by the State, he did not properly make assignments of error, but rather set forth arguments which the State characterized as irrelevant in an appeal of the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion for summary judgment. 4 ultimately dismissing Kent’s proof of claim. The State urges that Kent’s
bare claim that the $12,039.00 seized was from odd jobs, stimulus check
monies, and retirement funds did not satisfy the disclosure of information
requirement which includes disclosure of the date(s) the money was
acquired, identification of the transferor(s) of the money, and explanation of
the circumstances in which the money was acquired.
Finally, the State contends that Kent’s attachment of “newly
discovered evidence” to his brief is not reviewable by this Court as it is not
part of the trial court record. The State also argues that Kent has raised
several issues before this Court that he failed to raise before the trial court.
Specifically, the State claims that Kent asserts the following arguments for
the first time on appeal: (1) the State did not meet its burden in showing that
the value of the contraband was intended for commercial sale and prove that
the seizure was constitutional; (2) the State failed to prove each element of
its case beyond a reasonable doubt; (3) the seizure took place during COVID
which forced Kent to take on freelance work as a result of being laid off
from his job; and (4) Kent’s rights are safeguarded by the Eighth
Amendment. Because these issues were not argued before the trial court, the
State urges this Court not to consider these issues on appeal.
Appellate courts review motions for summary judgment de novo,
using the same criteria that govern the trial court’s consideration of whether
the summary judgment is appropriate. Peironnet v. Matador Res. Co., 12-
2292 (La. 6/28/13), 144 So. 3d 791; Dupree v. Bossier Par. Sch. Bd., 56,091
(La. App. 2 Cir. 2/26/25), 408 So. 3d 468, writ denied, 25-00368 (La.
6/3/25), 410 So. 3d 787; Bank of Am., N.A. v. Green, 52,044 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/23/18), 249 So. 3d 219. Summary judgment is favored by law and 5 provides a vehicle by which the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination
of an action may be achieved. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(2). We view the
record and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it in the light most
favorable to the nonmoving party. Hines v. Garrett, 04-0806 (La. 6/25/04),
876 So. 2d 764; Dupree, supra. A motion for summary judgment shall be
granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show there
is no genuine issue as to material fact and the mover is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3).
A genuine issue is one about which reasonable persons could disagree.
Hines, supra; Dupree, supra; Franklin v. Dick, 51,479 (La. App. 2 Cir.
6/21/17), 224 So. 3d 1130. In determining whether a fact is genuine for
purposes of summary judgment, courts cannot consider or weigh the merits,
make credibility determinations, or evaluate testimony. Suire v. Lafayette
City-Parish Consol. Gov’t, 04-1459 (La. 4/12/05), 907 So. 2d 37; Sepulvado
on Behalf of Sepulvado v. G-Rock Climbing, LLC, 55,637 (La. App. 2 Cir.
5/22/24), 387 So. 3d 870, writ denied, 24-00800 (La. 10/15/24), 394 So. 3d
818. A material fact is one that potentially ensures or precludes recovery,
affects the ultimate success of the litigant, or determines the outcome of the
dispute. Because it is the applicable substantive law that determines
materiality, whether a particular fact in dispute is material for summary
judgment purposes can be seen only in light of the substantive law
applicable to the case. Jackson v. City of New Orleans, 12-2742 (La.
1/28/14), 144 So. 3d 876; Richard v. Hall, 03-1488 (La. 4/23/04), 874 So. 2d
131; Sepulvado on Behalf of Sepulvado, supra.
La. Const. art. I, § 4(D) provides authority for civil forfeiture
proceedings related to certain drug-related criminal matters: 6 The following property may be forfeited and disposed of in a civil proceeding, as provided by law: contraband drugs; property derived in whole or in part from contraband drugs; property used in the distribution, transfer, sale, felony possession, manufacture, or transportation of contraband drugs; property furnished or intended to be furnished in exchange for contraband drugs; property used or intended to be used to facilitate any of the above conduct; or other property because the above-described property has been rendered unavailable.
Through the Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property
Forfeiture Act of 1989 (“Act”), the Louisiana Legislature established a civil
system of expressly delineated procedures which allows the State to seize
and have forfeited property that is related to, is a proceed from, facilitates, or
is itself a violation of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law.
La. R.S. 40:2601, et seq.; State v. 2003 Infiniti G35 VIN No.
JNKCV51E93MO24167, 09-1193 (La. 1/20/10), 27 So. 3d 824; State v.
$3,136 in US Currency, 53,703 (La. App. 2 Cir. 3/3/21), 314 So. 3d
1090, writ denied, 21-00481 (La. 5/25/21).
La. R.S. 40:2608 sets forth the procedure to be followed by the district
attorney to commence forfeiture proceedings, including providing notice of
pending forfeiture to the owner and interest holder in the property. The
district attorney may bring a forfeiture proceeding in rem or in personam or
both. See La. R.S. 40:2612 and 2613; State v. Watson, 49,331 (La. App. 2
Cir. 10/1/14), 151 So. 3d 120, writ denied, 14-2528 (La. 11/6/15), 180 So. 3d
305. Hearings are then held by the trial court to determine whether the
property is to be forfeited. State v. Watson, supra; State v. Birdwell, 47,126
(La. App. 2 Cir. 5/16/12), 92 So. 3d 1107.
In a civil forfeiture proceeding, the trial court’s findings of fact are
subject to the manifest error/clearly wrong standard of appellate review.
State v. $3,136 in US Currency, supra; State v. Birdwell, supra. The State 7 has the initial burden of showing the existence of probable cause for
forfeiture of property under the provisions of the Act. State v. $3,136 in US
Currency, supra; State v. $2,540.00 U.S. Currency Seized from Foster,
47,127 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/16/12), 92 So. 3d 1153. The evidence admissible
for meeting the State’s burden can be the same as that admissible in
determining probable cause at a preliminary hearing or by a judge in issuing
a search warrant. La. R.S. 40:2611(F); State v. $2,540.00 U.S. Currency
Seized from Foster, supra. Probable cause for forfeiture is satisfied when
the totality of the facts and circumstances provides reasonable ground for
believing the property in question is connected to illegal drug trafficking.
State v. $144,320.00, 12-0466 (La. 12/4/12), 105 So. 3d 694. The Act does
not require proof of a specific drug transaction. Id.
It is unnecessary for the State to trace the property to a particular drug
transaction – it is the totality of the circumstances that leads to a finding of
probable cause. State v. $3,136 in US Currency, supra; State v. $2,540.00
U.S. Currency, supra. The fact that money or a negotiable instrument was
found in proximity to contraband or an instrumentality of conduct giving rise
to forfeiture shall give rise to the permissible inference that the money or
negotiable instrument was the proceeds of conduct giving rise to forfeiture
or was used or intended to be used to facilitate the conduct. La. R.S.
40:2611(G). If the State meets this burden, the claimant must show by a
preponderance of the evidence that his or her interest in the property is not
subject to forfeiture. State v. $3,136 in US Currency, supra; State v.
$2,540.00 U.S. Currency, supra.
8 The owner or interest holder in the property must take affirmative
steps to preserve his interest in the property by filing a claim under La. R.S.
40:2610, which reads as follows:
A. Only an owner of or interest holder in property seized for forfeiture may file a claim, and shall do so in the manner provided in this Section. The claim shall be mailed to the seizing agency and to the district attorney by certified mail, return receipt requested, within thirty days after Notice of Pending Forfeiture. No extension of time for the filing of a claim shall be granted subject to forfeiture.
B. The claim shall be in affidavit form, signed by the claimant under oath, and sworn to by the affiant before one who has authority to administer the oath, under penalty of perjury or false swearing and shall set forth all of the following:
1) The caption of the proceedings as set forth on the Notice of Pending Forfeiture or petition and the name of the claimant. 2) The address where the claimant will accept mail. 3) The nature and extent of the claimant's interest in the property. 4) The date, identity of the transferor, and the circumstances of the claimant's acquisition of the interest in the property. 5) The specific provision of this Chapter relied on in asserting that the property is not subject to forfeiture. 6) All essential facts supporting each assertion. 7) The specific relief sought.
The mandatory plain-language requirements for the filing of a timely,
valid claim are clear and, if not met, carry significant consequences. State v.
2003 Infiniti G35, supra; State v. Watson, supra. The failure to fulfill any of
those requirements – whether it be missing the deadline, filing a claim not in
affidavit form, or not setting forth the necessary averments – precludes the
owner or interest holder from further participation in the forfeiture
proceeding. Id. The failure of a claimant to specify the date, identity of the
transferor, and the circumstances of the claimant’s acquisition of the interest
in the property is fatal to the claim. Id.
9 We first address Kent’s argument that he acquired the $12,039.00
through odd jobs, stimulus check monies, and retirement funds. Although
Kent is self-represented in this appeal, we note that he retained counsel
throughout the trial court proceedings. After the State propounded discovery
upon Kent, the trial court gave him ample opportunity to prove the source of
the money. The record clearly indicates that Kent failed to specify the date,
identity of the transferor, and the circumstances of his acquisition of any of
the money recovered from his vehicle following his arrest. His responses to
the State’s initial discovery requests were vague, indicating that his sources
of income were from “income tax, cleaning service, and auto detail shop.”
Kent failed to not only name the cleaning service and auto detail shop from
which he allegedly received money, but he also failed to provide an address
of these alleged businesses and indicate the time frame he received this
money and amount of money he received. Nothing Kent provided to the trial
court amounted to evidence of money acquired 17 months prior to the
seizure of the $12,039.00. The simple allegations that Kent acquired this
money through odd jobs, stimulus check monies, and retirement funds are
inadequate to preserve his interest in the property, and it has proven fatal to
his claim. La. R.S. 40:2610; see also State v. $144,320.00, supra; State v.
2003 Infiniti G35, supra; State v. Watson, supra. Consequently, we find no
error in the trial court’s judgment granting the State’s motion for summary
judgment.
Finally, appellate courts will not consider issues that were not raised
in the pleadings, were not addressed by the trial court, or are raised for the
first time on appeal. Thomas v. Bridges, 13-1855 (La. 5/7/14), 144 So. 3d
1001; Maxie v. Bates, 54,256 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/13/22), 338 So. 3d 564; 10 Hatfield v. Herring, 54,048 (La. App. 2 Cir. 8/11/21), 326 So. 3d 944, writ
denied, 21-01377 (La. 12/7/21), 328 So. 3d 424; Jacobs v. GEICO Indemnity
Co., 52,372 (La. App. 2 Cir. 9/26/18), 256 So. 3d 449. We find merit to the
State’s argument that Kent cannot first raise the issues relating to the State’s
failure to meet its burden and the alleged violation of his Constitutional
rights in the appellate court as they were not raised by Kent at any point
during the trial court proceedings. Furthermore, the account transcript from
the Internal Revenue Service, attached to Kent’s brief as Exhibit-1, does not
qualify as newly discovered evidence according to La. C. Cr. P. art. 854 and
will not be considered on appeal.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the trial court’s judgment granting the
State of Louisiana’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing Delancey
Kent’s claim to the $12,039.00 seized, and preempting him from further
participation in the drug asset forfeiture proceedings is affirmed. Costs of
this appeal are assessed to the defendant, Delancey Kent.
AFFIRMED.