State of Louisiana v. Property seized from Gregory Cox

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: December 22, 2020
• Docket: 2020CW0901
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2020 CW 0901

VERSUS

PROPERTY SEIZED FROM GREGORY COX DECEMBER 22, 2020

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No.

114043.

BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, AND PENZATO, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s August 21, 2020 judgment, denying relator, the State of Louisiana' s, Motion to

Strike, is reversed. Respondent, Jonathon Alan Barrett, failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of La. R. S.

40: 2610( B)( 4) & ( 6) by failing to provide specific information concerning " the date, identity of the transferor, and the

circumstances of [ his] acquisition of the interest in the

property." See State v. $ 144, 320. 00, 2012- 0466 ( La. 12/ 4/ 12), 105 So. 3d 694 & State v. $ 29, 940. 00 in U. S. Currency, 2017- 648 La. App. 3d Cir. 8/ 31/ 17), 227 So. 3d 304. Accordingly, the State of Louisiana' s Motion to Strike is granted and respondent

Barrett' s claim is stricken from the underlying forfeiture

proceeding.

JMM PMc AHP

Holdridge and Chutz, JJ., dissent. Unlike State v. 2003

Infinity G35, 2009- 1193 ( La 1/ 20/ 10), 27 So. 3d 824, and State v. 144, 320. 00, 201.2- 0466 ( La 12/ 4/ 12), 105 So. 3d 694 ( where there

was no proof of who owned the property in question), in this case the trial court made a factual finding that the money in question belonged to Mr. Barrett, a third party, and it was not money that could be properly seized by the State. In fact, the court made a determination that the money was earned by Mr.

Barrett from his employment and that it was his accumulated

savings from that employment. Since the trial court has made a

factual determination of the ownership of the money by a third party, any attempt to seize those assets by the State because of a technical violation of La. R. S. 40: 2610 would be illegal and

unconstitutional.

DEPUTY LINRK OF COURT FOR THE COURT