Harry Hitchcock v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 09/28/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS SPECIAL TERM, 2012 2110689 Harry Hitchcock v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900400) MOORE, J u d g e . Harry Hitchcock C i r c u i t Court appeals ("the t r i a l from a judgment o f t h e Madison court") ordering the f o r f e i t u r e of H i t c h c o c k ' s 2 0 1 0 C h e v r o l e t Camaro a u t o m o b i l e . We a f f i r m . 2110689 Background On M a r c h 30, 2010, of marijuana marijuana and was H i t c h c o c k was 2010, H i t c h c o c k was arrested for possession f o r d r i v i n g u n d e r t h e i n f l u e n c e ("DUI"); t h e found i n the 2010 Chevrolet s i t t i n g at the time of h i s a r r e s t . the S t a t e of Alabama i n i t i a t e d t o A l a . Code 1975, Camaro. H i t c h c o c k answered the c o m p l a i n t , in which On A p r i l forfeiture pursuant was Camaro 7, proceedings, § 20-2-93, a g a i n s t t h e Chevrolet admitting that t h e owner o f t h e Camaro b u t d e n y i n g t h a t i t was he subject to forfeiture. On April possession 18, of 2011, Hitchcock marijuana misdemeanor. He was t h a t sentence was in the sentenced entered second a guilty degree, t o s e r v e one to Class a plea A year i n j a i l , s u s p e n d e d , c o n d i t i o n e d on h i s but successfully c o m p l e t i n g two y e a r s ' s u p e r v i s e d p r o b a t i o n and p a y i n g certain assessed by fines. The DUI charge was nolle prossed the State. On M a r c h 9, 2012, for On a j u d g m e n t as March 12, 2012, H i t c h c o c k , t h r o u g h l e g a l c o u n s e l , moved a matter the of law trial i n the court forfeiture conducted an ore action. tenus h e a r i n g on t h e S t a t e ' s f o r f e i t u r e c o m p l a i n t , and, on M a r c h 14, 2 2110689 2012, the trial court entered f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e Camaro. that Hitchcock substances and reasonable charged had and The used that was the the not trial The presented e s t a b l i s h e d the f o l l o w i n g . on M a r c h 30, subject was park 2010, sitting "skate park." or would not smelled According light Camaro of the was offense of the drugs found i n the t h a t judgment. Background at the March 12, 2012, Camaro smoking m a r i j u a n a testified t h a t he sitting trial testified received a report that a Hitchcock had just a friend; Wilkerson Wilkerson the found person at the proceeded to the in a 2010 Camaro A c c o r d i n g t o W i l k e r s o n , he a p p r o a c h e d H i t c h c o c k , s t a t e d t h a t he visit in a found of the controlled O f f i c e r Tanner W i l k e r s o n he Wilkerson and automobile. who in Hitchcock t i m e l y appealed evidence transport forfeiture excessive ordering court s p e c i f i c a l l y Camaro t o Evidentiary skate judgment and t h e amount and p a c k a g i n g vehicle. that, a identify testified what to he arrived testified the friend that, while believed Wilkerson, to that Hitchcock could o r where t h e talking be Hitchcock 3 i n town f r o m F l o r i d a with marijuana admitted friend that not lived. Hitchcock, and to he alcohol. he had 2110689 consumed a "rum and Coke" and that b e f o r e W i l k e r s o n a r r i v e d on t h e Wilkerson testified he had smoked scene. that, after conducting s o b r i e t y t e s t , he s e a r c h e d t h e Camaro and f o u n d a cigarette containing Wilkerson testified what he that marijuana believed his backup a d d i t i o n a l m a r i j u a n a i n t h e Camaro. to field- hand-rolled be officer a marijuana. had located Wilkerson stated that he had a l s o f o u n d a cup c o n t a i n i n g t h e r e m a i n s o f a rum and Coke m i x e d d r i n k i n t h e Camaro. Wilkerson t e s t i f i e d that Hitchcock had b e e n a r r e s t e d and c h a r g e d w i t h p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a and DUI. Investigator 2010, Ted Thiele that, on March 30, he had a c c o m p a n i e d O f f i c e r W i l k e r s o n t o t h e s k a t e p a r k . Thiele testified t h a t he had t h e t r u n k o f t h e Camaro and found testified a large, inside the green, leafy f o u n d a b l u e and w h i t e c o o l e r i n that, i n s i d e t h e c o o l e r , he c l e a r " Z i p l o c k " bag. Ziplock bag, substance he that found he Thiele four testified separate believed to be bags had that, of a marijuana. A c c o r d i n g to T h i e l e , subsequent t o x i c o l o g y t e s t i n g confirmed that the substance approximately two was, in ounces. fact, According 4 marijuana to weighing Thiele, after 2110689 H i t c h c o c k was a r r e s t e d , t h e Camaro was towed to the p o l i c e station. Nathan Beard investigator March the testified by t h e Madison that he Police i s employed an and t h a t , Department as on 30, 2010, he a l s o went t o t h e s k a t e p a r k t o a s s i s t i n search examined o f t h e Camaro. Beard testified that he h a d t h e m a r i j u a n a t h a t was f o u n d i n t h e Camaro a n d h a d observed that i t was individually wrapped, which, Beard t e s t i f i e d , was " t y p i c a l o f a ' f o r s a l e ' p r o d u c t " ; he a d m i t t e d , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e m a r i j u a n a c o u l d a l s o have b e e n f o r p e r s o n a l use and s i m p l y packaged H i t c h c o c k h a d no l u g g a g e that way. Beard testified or p e r s o n a l items w i t h that him i n the Camaro, w h i c h w o u l d be e x p e c t e d i f H i t c h c o c k was i n M a d i s o n C o u n t y on a p e r s o n a l v i s i t showed no insects or from F l o r i d a , dirt or other r e c e n t l y h a d t r a v e l e d any d i s t a n c e Beard from testified that t h e Camaro d e p e n d e d grams o r o u n c e s . i n t o ounces, a n d t h a t t h e Camaro indications that i t from out o f s t a t e . the value of the marijuana on w h e t h e r A c c o r d i n g t o Beard, i t was b r o k e n seized down b y i f i t was b r o k e n down i t w o u l d be w o r t h $100 p e r o u n c e , b u t i f i t was b r o k e n down i n t o grams, i t w o u l d be w o r t h a p p r o x i m a t e l y $20 5 2110689 p e r gram. According testified that marijuana seized grams. Beard 1 officer t o B e a r d , 28 grams e q u a l s 1 o u n c e . the toxicology from the testified Camaro that he f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y two The State judgment as rested report of weighed had that approximately w o r k e d as a law, and Hitchcock asserting f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t he was that moved the ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) ; t h a t t h e S t a t e had its forfeiture had i m p r o p e r l y substance, The trial the court Hitchcock t h a t he He State that a had So. 2d f a i l e d to t i m e l y prosecute t h a t , because the Alabama statutes c l a s s i f i e d m a r i j u a n a as a S c h e d u l e I c o n t r o l l e d seizure violated his denied Hitchcock's constitutional rights. motion. t h e n t e s t i f i e d on h i s own is a retired stated for t h e owner o f t h e C a m a r o ; t h a t 837 and 26 narcotics t h e s e i z u r e o f t h e Camaro v i o l a t e d Ex p a r t e K e l l y , 766 case; the years. i t s case, a matter indicated Beard he behalf. He A l a b a m a and F l o r i d a h i g h - s c h o o l lives i n F l o r i d a but that, on testified teacher. March 30, We a c k n o w l e d g e t h e d i s c r e p a n c y i n t h e t e s t i m o n y o f T h i e l e and B e a r d r e g a r d i n g t h e t o t a l w e i g h t o f m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d f r o m t h e Camaro. T h i e l e ' s t e s t i m o n y was s i m p l y an e s t i m a t e o f t h e amount o f m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d , w h i l e B e a r d t e s t i f i e d t o t h e a c t u a l amount o f m a r i j u a n a s e i z e d b a s e d on t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e t o x i c o l o g y r e p o r t . That discrepancy does n o t impact our r e s o l u t i o n of H i t c h c o c k ' s appeal. 1 6 2110689 2010, he had Hitchcock driven admitted to Madison that he County had M a d i s o n C o u n t y on t h a t d a t e , to purchased but he visit the caused by peripheral testified his that personal the use. bagged s e p a r a t e l y marijuana, He he Hitchcock sale that had feet. the three identified of c o u l d not marijuana or Hitchcock had four "Tangerine the other Camaro w i t h that trust introduced and controlled into from substances; p u r c h a s e d t h e Camaro u s i n g money he affidavits, had fourth funds He l i v i n g t r u s t t h a t had b e e n e s t a b l i s h e d by H i t c h c o c k ' s the been Dream," a possible i n t o e v i d e n c e sworn a f f i d a v i t s f r o m t h e t r u s t e e o f a to for v a r i e t i e s of f r o m a t r u s t e s t a b l i s h e d by h i s m o t h e r . according been m a r i j u a n a had or as pain recall. denied purchasing t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had received his in t h a t i t was deal with i n his possession explained b e c a u s e he in Chunk," " N o r t h e r n L i g h t s , " and v a r i e t y t h a t he the marijuana which "Pineapple neuropathy friend. marijuana also claimed " l i k e a m e d i c i n e " t o him b e c a u s e i t h e l p e d him a Hitchcock was funds from received evidence documents establishing T h e S t a t e r a i s e d no o b j e c t i o n t o t h e documents i n t o e v i d e n c e . 2 7 2 had offered revocable mother; a beneficiary i t . he of Hitchcock that a d m i s s i o n of the those 2110689 Camaro had b e e n new a total when he p u r c h a s e d i t i n November 2009 f o r of $32,129. t h e Camaro was The State s t i p u l a t e d t h a t the value of as shown i n t h o s e d o c u m e n t s . Analysis Hitchcock because the Camaro. State extent owner o f f a c t and Moreover, any State the bears the only supporting Ala. 2d R. dispute that admitted was owner he the S t a t e was required had that f a c t at appellant's owned the answer t o in his Camaro, H i t c h c o c k in his vehicle. So. he establish reversed the of the Camaro. to e s t a b l i s h the s t i p u l a t e d to brief, Hitchcock burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g the It is well settled those issues properly that fails 1222, 1224 ( A l a . C i v . App. App. P.,] requires discussions of facts support the party's and that legal p o s i t i o n . I f t h e y do 8 and court for "Rule will which the 686 contain authorities not, of 28(a)(10)[, arguments i n b r i e f s relevant action, Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , 1996). to ownership "[t]his presented a u t h o r i t y has b e e n c i t e d . " that trial. a u t h o r i t y to i n d i c a t e that, i n a f o r f e i t u r e the address that the the d i d not to however, complaint Thus, t o the cite failed Hitchcock, forfeiture legal f i r s t a r g u e s t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t must be that arguments 2110689 are waived." W h i t e Sands G r o u p , L.L.C. v. PRS So. 2d 1042, 1058 argument We ( A l a . 2008) . I I , LLC, Thus, we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s 998 that further. next address Hitchcock's argument that the State v i o l a t e d t h e Due P r o c e s s C l a u s e o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n by f a i l i n g t o t i m e l y b r i n g t h e forfeiture action to trial. In h i s b r i e f , Hitchcock has f a i l e d t o c i t e any a u t h o r i t y i n s u p p o r t o f t h a t a r g u m e n t , and, as a r e s u l t , we n e e d n o t a d d r e s s h i s argument on a p p e a l . See Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , s u p r a ; R u l e 2 8 ( a ) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. P.; and W h i t e Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS I I , LLC, s u p r a . I n any e v e n t , A l a . Code 1975, § 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) , r e q u i r e s o n l y that a forfeiture p r o c e e d i n g be " i n s t i t u t e d promptly." , "'"The mandate i n [§ 2 0 - 2 - 9 3 ( c ) , A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 ) , ] t h a t f o r f e i t u r e p r o c e e d i n g s be i n s t i t u t e d p r o m p t l y i s necessary to the s t a t u t e ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y . Adams v. S t a t e ex r e l . W h e t s t o n e , 598 So. 2d 967, 969 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1992) ( q u o t i n g R e a c h v. S t a t e , 530 So. 2 d 40, 41 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) ) . Furthermore, a forfeiture proceeding that i s not instituted promptly i s i n e f f e c t u a l . Adams, 598 So. 2d a t 969. 'The t e r m " p r o m p t l y " has been c o n s t r u e d t o mean w i t h a reasonable time i n light of a l l the circumstances.' S t a t e v . $17,636.00 i n United S t a t e s C u r r e n c y , 650 So. 2d 900, 901 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1994) -^/-^T^O ¢|-^ ¢|-^T|-^/-^T^^^^ ¢|-T7 9 2110689 State v. 2006) . 2d Chesson, 948 So. 2d 566, 568-69 810, 56 814 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2002), this ( A l a . 1995),] '[w]hat court stated than 7 to 10 months, a d d r e s s i n g the i s s u e . ' i s decided and the forfeiture ' i s evident 667 So. 2d a t 66 H i t c h c o c k was initiated after the the with the failed his that argument initiated in a that promptness H i t c h c o c k has 7, not prompt manner, the on A p r i l cases 7, 30, 2010, Thus, t h e S t a t e week frame u n e q u i v o c a l l y of authority the but the s e i z e d on M a r c h requirement o n l y must on a p p r o x i m a t e l y one time t o p r o v i d e any from 2010. proceeding Camaro; So. (collecting cases)." initiated s e r v e d on A p r i l forfeiture seizing complies a c t i o n was that, s h o r t time frame,' i . e . , I n t h i s c a s e , H i t c h c o c k ' s Camaro was 2010, So. [v. F l o y d , 667 i s "prompt" f a c t s of a g i v e n case, but a f a i r l y less App. I n $3,011 i n U n i t e d S t a t e s C u r r e n c y v. S t a t e , 845 " [ a ] s t h e Supreme C o u r t n o t e d i n L i g h t f o o t 2d (Ala. Civ. § i n support forfeiture the 20-2-93(c). State's action of be forfeiture a c t i o n must be b r o u g h t t o t r i a l w i t h i n a c e r t a i n t i m e frame as well. We, therefore, need not R u l e 28(a) ( 1 0 ) , A l a . R. App. White address that argument. See P.; Asam v. D e v e r e a u x , s u p r a ; and Sands Group, L.L.C. v. PRS 10 I I , LLC, supra. 2110689 Hitchcock next argues that the judgment ordering f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e Camaro v i o l a t e s Ex p a r t e K e l l y , 837 766 the So. 2d ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , i n w h i c h our supreme c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r a c i v i l - f o r f e i t u r e j u d g m e n t was Excessive States Fines Clause o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o t h e Constitution. constitutionally so e x c e s s i v e as t o v i o l a t e "[T]he excessive question calls for whether the a the United fine application is of a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l s t a n d a r d to the f a c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r case, and in is this context appropriate." n.10 de novo that question U.S. 321, 336 (1998). court discussed e l a b o r a t e d on test of U n i t e d S t a t e s v. B a j a k a j i a n , 524 I n S p e a r s v. S t a t e , 929 this review the established Ex proper in So. 2d 477 ( A l a . C i v . App. parte Kelly, supra, application United Because of i t s r e l e v a n c e States of the v. to Hitchcock's at 2005), length proportionality Bajakajian, i s s u e , we supra. quote Spears at l e n g t h : " I n Ex p a r t e K e l l e y , 766 So. 2d 837, 839-40 (Ala. 1999), our supreme court applied the p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y t e s t s e t o u t i n U n i t e d S t a t e s v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 ( 1 9 9 8 ) , t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e s e i z u r e o f a v e h i c l e c o n s t i t u t e d an e x c e s s i v e f i n e . The c o u r t f i r s t s e t o u t t h e g e n e r a l s t a n d a r d -the proportionality test. 11 and from 2110689 "'"The touchstone of the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n q u i r y under the E x c e s s i v e Fines Clause is the principle of proportionality. The amount of the f o r f e i t u r e must b e a r some r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the g r a v i t y of the offense that i t i s designed to punish Until today, h o w e v e r , we have n o t a r t i c u l a t e d a s t a n d a r d for determining whether a punitive f o r f e i t u r e i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y excessive. We now hold that a punitive f o r f e i t u r e v i o l a t e s the E x c e s s i v e F i n e s Clause i f i t i s g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l to the g r a v i t y of a d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e n s e . " ' "Ex parte Kelley, 766 So. 2d at 839 (quoting B a j a k a j i a n , 524 U.S. a t 334, 118 S.Ct. 2 0 2 8 ) . Our supreme c o u r t then discussed the United States Supreme C o u r t ' s e x p l a n a t i o n o f how to apply the proportionality test, which requires a court c o n s i d e r i n g t h e i s s u e t o '"compare t h e amount o f t h e forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant's offense. I f t h e amount o f t h e f o r f e i t u r e i s g r o s s l y d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l to the g r a v i t y of the d e f e n d a n t ' s o f f e n s e , i t i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . " ' Ex p a r t e K e l l e y , 766 So. 2d a t 840 ( q u o t i n g B a j a k a j i a n , 524 U.S. at 336-37, 118 S.Ct. 2028). "The K e l l e y c o u r t t h e n c o n s i d e r e d w h e t h e r t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f K e l l e y ' s $30,000 v e h i c l e c o n s t i t u t e d an e x c e s s i v e f i n e i n l i g h t o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y test. Ex p a r t e K e l l e y , 766 So. 2d a t 840. Kelley had b e e n c h a r g e d w i t h a c l a s s C f e l o n y offense c a r r y i n g a p o t e n t i a l $5,000 f i n e . Id. Thus, t h e court concluded, a f o r f e i t u r e of the $30,000 v e h i c l e , w h i c h was s i x t i m e s t h e amount o f the maximum f i n e t h a t c o u l d be i m p o s e d , was 'grossly disproportional to the gravity of [Kelley's] o f f e n s e ' and t h e r e f o r e c o n s t i t u t e d an e x c e s s i v e f i n e t h a t v i o l a t e d t h e E i g h t h Amendment. Id." S p e a r s , 929 So. 2d a t 478-79. 12 2110689 This c o u r t i n Spears continued: "The federal courts have enumerated some p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by a c o u r t f a c i n g an e x c e s s i v e - f i n e argument i n [a] c i v i l - f o r f e i t u r e case. See U n i t e d S t a t e s v. One 1992 I s u z u T r o o p e r VIN # JACDH58W3N79112571, 51 F. Supp. 2d 1268 (M.D. Ala. 1999) . Among t h e p o s s i b l e f a c t o r s a r e '(1) t h e c u l p a b i l i t y o f t h e c l a i m a n t ; (2) t h e g r a v i t y o f t h e c r i m e ; (3) t h e s e n t e n c e t h a t c o u l d have been i m p o s e d on t h e p e r p e t r a t o r o f t h e o f f e n s e ; and (4) the n a t u r e and v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y f o r f e i t e d . ' One 1992 I s u z u T r o o p e r , 51 F. Supp. 2d a t 1273 n.4. The c l a i m a n t i n One 1992 I s u z u T r o o p e r was n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e d r u g t r a n s a c t i o n i n w h i c h t h e v e h i c l e was i n v o l v e d , and h e r b o y f r i e n d , who had c o m m i t t e d t h e o f f e n s e from which the f o r f e i t u r e a c t i o n arose, was c o n v i c t e d o f ' s i m p l e p o s s e s s i o n ' and f i n e d only $250. I d . a t 1273. Although the c o u r t agreed t h a t the 'actual convictions in a case are not d i s p o s i t i v e f o r p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y review purposes,' i t s t a t e d t h a t 'the r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s w i l l v a r y f r o m case t o case.' I d . a t 1273-74. The c o u r t i n [One 1992 I s u z u T r o o p e r ] u l t i m a t e l y c o n c l u d e d t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e c l a i m a n t ' s v e h i c l e c o n s t i t u t e d an excessive fine. " S p e a r s a r g u e s t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f an i t e m worth three times the p o s s i b l e f i n e f o r the o f f e n s e s c h a r g e d i s an e x c e s s i v e f i n e under the Eighth Amendment and t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l i t y t e s t . He makes much o f t h e f a c t t h a t , d e s p i t e b e i n g c h a r g e d w i t h p o s s e s s i o n of marijuana i n the f i r s t degree, the amount o f m a r i j u a n a i n h i s p o s s e s s i o n was n o t enough t o q u a l i f y as an amount f o r s a l e . I n a d d i t i o n , he a r g u e s t h a t Bond [a roommate] and t h e t h i r d roommate were n o t c h a r g e d ; h o w e v e r , some t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l indicated that money seized from the third roommate's s a f e was, i n f a c t , condemned as w e l l . fines "As n o t e d a b o v e , S p e a r s i s i n t h e amount o f $10,000. 13 facing potential The t r i a l c o u r t 2110689 found t h a t h i s v e h i c l e , although c o n t a i n i n g s e v e r a l enhanced a c c e s s o r i e s , had a f a i r market v a l u e o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y $30,000 a t t h e t i m e o f i t s s e i z u r e . S p e a r s a d m i t t e d t h a t he and Bond u s e d t h e v e h i c l e t o t r a v e l t o p u r c h a s e b o t h m a r i j u a n a and c o c a i n e . The v e h i c l e c o n t a i n e d 1.19 grams o f m a r i j u a n a and t r a c e s of cocaine r e s i d u e . Spears had p r e v i o u s l y been convicted of possession of marijuana. He now s t a n d s charged w i t h possession of marijuana i n the f i r s t d e g r e e and u n l a w f u l p o s s e s s i o n of a controlled substance. B a s e d on t h e s e f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t a f o r f e i t u r e o f an i t e m w o r t h t h r e e t i m e s t h e maximum p o s s i b l e f i n e s did n o t c o n s t i t u t e an e x c e s s i v e f i n e u n d e r t h e E i g h t h Amendment. "We s i m p l y do n o t a g r e e w i t h S p e a r s t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e of h i s v e h i c l e worth three times the amount o f t h e p o t e n t i a l f i n e s f o r t h e p a r t i c u l a r offenses w i t h w h i c h he i s c h a r g e d i s grossly d i s p r o p o r t i o n a l to the g r a v i t y of the offenses. In H a r r i s v. S t a t e , 821 So. 2d 177, 186 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f $165,501 i n c u r r e n c y was n o t an e x c e s s i v e f i n e . One o f t h e c l a i m a n t s i n H a r r i s , G r e g o r y B i n i o n , was f o u n d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o be ' " i n v o l v e d i n a h i g h p r o f i t b u s i n e s s o f n a r c o t i c s s a l e s . " ' H a r r i s , 821 So. 2d a t 186. B a s e d on t h i s f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n , the H a r r i s c o u r t noted t h a t the f i n e s f o r a c o c a i n e trafficking c o n v i c t i o n ranged from $50,000 to $250,000 d e p e n d i n g on t h e q u a n t i t y o f t h e c o c a i n e being t r a f f i c k e d . Id. The c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f $165,501 was an e x c e s s i v e f i n e i n l i g h t o f t h e r a n g e o f p o s s i b l e f i n e s p r o v i d e d f o r by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . I d . B e c a u s e o u r supreme c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e f i n e i n H a r r i s ($165,501, w h i c h was more t h a n t h r e e t i m e s t h e l o w e s t p o s s i b l e f i n e ) was n o t e x c e s s i v e , we l i k e w i s e conclude t h a t the f o r f e i t u r e of Spears's v e h i c l e , w o r t h t h r e e t i m e s t h e amount o f t h e f i n e s t h a t c o u l d be i m p o s e d a g a i n s t S p e a r s , s a t i s f i e s t h e 14 2110689 proportionality test. judgment o f t h e t r i a l Spears, A c c o r d i n g l y , we court." a f f i r m the 929 So. 2d a t 479-80. As r e c o g n i z e d i n S p e a r s , s u p r a , f o r p u r p o s e s forfeiture proportionality review, the trial of a c i v i l court c o n s i d e r t h e maximum f i n e t h a t c o u l d have b e e n i m p o s e d on t h e f a c t s t h e maximum of the case; the t r i a l fine guilty plea. imposed based Additionally, may based c o u r t i s n o t l i m i t e d by on t h e a c t u a l conviction or i n Spears, s u p r a , and i n H a r r i s , s u p r a , a f o r f e i t u r e o f t h r e e o r more t i m e s t h e amount o f t h e f i n e t h a t c o u l d have b e e n i m p o s e d i n t h o s e c a s e s was a f f i r m e d . The in e v i d e n c e i n t h i s c a s e e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t H i t c h c o c k was p o s s e s s i o n o f 26 t o 27 grams o f m a r i j u a n a p a c k a g e d manner s u i t a b l e f o r sale. H i t c h c o c k had used in a t h e Camaro t o c o n c e a l a n d t o t r a n s p o r t t h e m a r i j u a n a , he h a d t h e m a r i j u a n a in a public skate park where young people a r e known t o c o n g r e g a t e , a n d , a l t h o u g h he l i v e s o u t o f s t a t e , he c o u l d n o t or would the n o t i d e n t i f y h i s s p e c i f i c d e s t i n a t i o n i n Alabama a t time possession 1975, of h i s arrest. of marijuana § 13A-12-213 Although i n the f i r s t he was degree, (possession of marijuana charged with s e e A l a . Code f o r other than p e r s o n a l u s e ) , a C l a s s C f e l o n y p u n i s h a b l e by i m p r i s o n m e n t a n d 15 2110689 a f i n e o f n o t more t h a n $15,000, s e e A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-56(a)(3) (addressing felony), a n d A l a . Code maximum fine term allowed of imprisonment for a 1975, § 1 3 A - 5 - 1 1 ( a ) ( 3 ) f o r a Class g u i l t y plea to possession C of marijuana felony), Class C (stating the he e n t e r e d a i n the second degree, see A l a . Code 1975, § 13A-12-214 ( p o s s e s s i o n o f m a r i j u a n a f o r personal use), Because a C l a s s A misdemeanor. the value o f t h e Camaro was stipulated t o be b e t w e e n $32,000 a n d $33,000, t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e Camaro was approximately Hitchcock 2010. in t w i c e t h e v a l u e o f t h e maximum a p p l i c a b l e f i n e c o u l d have r e c e i v e d B a s e d on S p e a r s , this case was f o r h i s a c t i o n s on M a r c h 30, s u p r a , we c o n c l u d e not excessive v i o l a t e the Excessive Fines Clause the U n i t e d S t a t e s that the f o r f e i t u r e and, t h e r e f o r e , does n o t o f t h e E i g h t h Amendment t o Constitution. H i t c h c o c k n e x t a s s e r t s t h a t t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e Camaro pursuant 1975, t o t h e A l a b a m a C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s A c t , A l a . Code § 20-2-1 e t s e q . , v i o l a t e s asserts that marijuana Schedule I c o n t r o l l e d should no l o n g e r substance, 16 h i s due-process r i g h t s . pursuant be c l a s s i f i e d He as a t o A l a . Code 1975, 2110689 § 20-2-23. Because of the a l l e g e d improper c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 3 marijuana, Hitchcock argues, his property was seized of and ordered f o r f e i t e d i n v i o l a t i o n of h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s . We disagree. Section 20-2-93(a)(5) s t a t e s , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , that following are subject which are used, or are any manner t o to intended facilitate possession, or subdivision (1) o r been the concealment grown, " A l l ... f o r use, of any manufactured, sale, property subsection." "[a]ll vehicles to transport, transportation, (2) o f t h i s of § 20-2-93(a) d e s c r i b e s have forfeiture: or the ... in receipt, described in Subdivision (1) c o n t r o l l e d substances distributed, which dispensed or H i t c h c o c k a s s e r t s t h a t , pursuant to s t a t u t e , a Schedule I c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e i s one t h a t has a " h i g h p o t e n t i a l f o r a b u s e " and has "no a c c e p t e d m e d i c a l use i n t r e a t m e n t i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o r l a c k s a c c e p t e d s a f e t y f o r use i n t r e a t m e n t under m e d i c a l s u p e r v i s i o n . " See A l a . Code 1975, § 20-2-22. H i t c h c o c k a r g u e s t h a t m a r i j u a n a no l o n g e r meets t h e c r i t e r i a f o r i n c l u s i o n u n d e r S c h e d u l e I b e c a u s e , he a s s e r t s , m a r i j u a n a has m e d i c i n a l v a l u e . I n s u p p o r t o f t h a t a r g u m e n t , he p o i n t s t o o t h e r s t a t e s t h a t have l e g a l i z e d t h e m e d i c i n a l use of marijuana. He a l s o p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t t h a t A l a b a m a has a u t h o r i z e d r e s e a r c h and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n w i t h m a r i j u a n a f o r t h e t r e a t m e n t of c e r t a i n s i d e e f f e c t s from chemotherapy and g l a u c o m a i n t h e "Alabama C o n t r o l l e d S u b s t a n c e s T h e r a p e u t i c R e s e a r c h A c t , " A l a . Code 1975, § 20-2-110 e t s e q . 3 17 2110689 a c q u i r e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f any law o f t h i s s t a t e . " (Emphasis added.) Hitchcock acquired offered no the marijuana evidence that he to e s t a b l i s h t h a t he admittedly possessed had in any manner o t h e r t h a n i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e l a w s o f A l a b a m a , i . e . , Hitchcock failed t o argue or e s t a b l i s h t h a t he had obtained t h e m a r i j u a n a i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h A l a . Code 1975, § 20-2-110 e t s e q . , o r v i a some o t h e r l e g a l means. is Thus, w h e t h e r m a r i j u a n a c l a s s i f i e d as a c o n t r o l l e d s u b s t a n c e u n d e r S c h e d u l e under Schedule Alabama, Hitchcock I I , I I I , IV, o r V, marijuana had Additionally, is a acquired the i t i s undisputed that, controlled i t evidence I, or in substance violation presented to of the in and that the law. trial court e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t H i t c h c o c k h a d c o n c e a l e d and had t r a n s p o r t e d the i l l e g a l l y that trial a c q u i r e d m a r i j u a n a i n t h e Camaro. i s required under the forfeiture statute. That i sa l l Thus, the c o u r t ' s judgment i s a f f i r m e d . AFFIRMED. P i t t m a n , B r y a n , and Thomas, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n t h e r e s u l t , w i t h o u t w r i t i n g . 18

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.