Summary 2012 WY 75

Summary of Decision May 30, 2012

[SPECIAL NOTE:  This opinion uses the "Universal Citation."  It was given an "official" citation when it was issued.  You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation.  You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered.  When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number.  The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance] 

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name:  In the Matter of U.S. Currency totaling $7,209.00: Libretti v. State of Wyo.

Citation:  2012 WY 75

Docket Number: S-11-0243   

URL: http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, The Honorable Catherine E. Wilking, Judge

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

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

Date of Decision: May 30, 2012

Facts:  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 property were seized from several individuals because of their alleged use in violation of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act.  Appellants claimed $7,209.00 of the cash seized. Both timely responded to the Forfeiture Complaint with the filing of motions to dismiss or in the alternative for a more definite statement.  On August 10, 2011, the district court held the evidentiary hearing on the State’s Forfeiture Complaint.  Appellant Libretti appeared by telephone and objected when the court called the hearing as an evidentiary hearing.  Appellant Hohlios attended the hearing, but the court was not aware of his presence.  On August 26, 2011, the district court issued its Forfeiture Order, finding that the funds seized from Appellants were proceeds from violations of the Wyoming Controlled Substances Act. 

Issues:  I) Whether the District Court erred in not ruling on the claimants’ Motion to Dismiss/Motions for more Definite Statement; II) Whether the District Court erred in not allowing claimants to file an Answer, conduct discovery, and file Motions for Summary Judgment; III) Whether the District Court erred in not ruling on, and not granting, Claimants’ Motions for more Definite Statement; IV) Whether 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, whether the Court then lacked authority to enter its judgment; and VI) Whether claimant Hohlios was unfairly denied his right to be heard at trial.

Holdings:  The Court held that the district court acted in accordance with the Wyoming Rules of Civil Procedure in ruling on the State’s Forfeiture Complaint and did not deny the rights of Appellants to file answers, conduct discovery, file summary judgment motions, or otherwise fully participate in the proceedings.

The Court affirmed. 

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.

Summary 2007 WY 119

Summary of Decision issued July 31, 2007

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses "Universal Citation" and was given an "official" citation when issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will note that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation, the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion should include the reporter page number. If you need assistance, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Doles v. State

Citation: 2007 WY 119

Docket Number: S-07-0002

Appeal from the District Court of Campbell County, the Honorable Michael N. Deegan, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Nicholas H. Carter of Carter Law Office, PC, Gillette, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; and David L. Delicath, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Issue: Whether the Appellant’s acquittal on related criminal charges acts collaterally to estop the State from pursuing forfeiture.

Facts/Discussion: This is an appeal from a district court’s order of forfeiture in which order the district court found certain items to be “drug paraphernalia” as defined by statute and ordered their forfeiture to the State of Wyoming.
The Court reviews de novo a district court’s application of or refusal to apply the doctrine of collateral estoppel because it is a question of law. All three criminal charges against Appellant were based on Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1056. Coffey v. United States is the seminal case in this area of law. While not relying directly upon the equitable doctrine of collateral estoppel, the United States Supreme Court declared that the acquittals in the criminal case barred the government from pursuing civil forfeiture. Appellant contended that the holding of Coffey endured citing the following cases: Lowther v. United States, United States v. One 1956 Ford Fairlane Tudor Sedan; Bramble v. Kleindienst; United States v. 86.9 Cases; and United States v. One De Soto Sedan. The Wyoming case in which collateral estoppel was applied to forfeiture proceedings after a criminal action is State v. Eleven Thousand Three Hundred Forty-Six Dollars & No Cents in United States Currency. The Court carefully limited its opinion as to the extent of the effect of collateral estoppel. The Court held the State was barred from relitigating the issue of whether the law enforcement officers had probable cause at the time of the seizure and arrest but that the State was not barred from attempting to prove, under another subsection of the forfeiture statute that the State Board of Pharmacy or the Attorney General otherwise had probable cause to believe that the money was traceable to violations of the controlled substances act. Thus the case did not involve the direct issue of the effect of an acquittal upon a forfeiture action.
Coffey has been overruled. The Supreme Court determined that Coffey did not apply to estop the government from pursuing a tax deficiency after an acquittal on related criminal charges because the recovery action required a different burden of proof. The Court stated they accepted and adopted the reasoning of 89 Firearms, One Lot Emerald and Helvering where a general verdict of not guilty in a criminal case does not answer the same question asked in a civil forfeiture action under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 35-7-1049. Because the jury returned a general verdict of not guilty on the three charges in the instant case, the Court does not know what element of the crimes it found unproven beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore, they do not know whether the jury determined that the seized items were not drug paraphernalia.

Holding: The district court correctly determined that the acquittal of the Appellant in the criminal case that preceded the forfeiture proceeding did not collaterally estop the State from pursuing forfeiture.

Affirmed.

C.J. Voigt delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/2tgxz5 .