Darry Lee v. State of Alabama ex rel. Robert L. Broussard, District Attorney of Madison County
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/05/2012 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110751 Darry Lee v. S t a t e o f Alabama ex r e l . Robert L. Broussard, D i s t r i c t A t t o r n e y o f Madison County Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900141) MOORE, J u d g e . On F e b r u a r y Robert 4, 2010, t h e S t a t e o f A l a b a m a , on b e h a l f o f L. B r o u s s a r d , f i l e d a complaint District Attorney o f Madison County, s e e k i n g t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f $3,000 i n U n i t e d 2110751 States currency automobile seized ("the from cash") and a J a r v i s Woods. 2003 Infiniti The c o m p l a i n t G35 alleged t h a t t h e v e h i c l e was r e g i s t e r e d t o D a r r y L e e ("Darry") b u t was believed t o be owned b y Woods. Woods a n d D a r r y a d d e d as p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . answered t h e c o m p l a i n t . 2010, asserting that Darry were both On F e b r u a r y 19, 2010, Woods filed an a n s w e r on M a r c h 5, he was t h e owner o f the cash and t h e Infiniti. On S e p t e m b e r 1, 2 0 1 1 , Woods f i l e d a consent t o the forfeiture of t h e cash On S e p t e m b e r and t h e I n f i n i t i . 6, 2011, t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a j u d g m e n t f o r f e i t i n g a l l r i g h t s Woods p o s s e s s e d i n t h e c a s h a n d t h e I n f i n i t i the action would remain pending f o r a decision Darry's i n t e r e s t i n that property. court entered pertinent a judgment and s t a t i n g on M a r c h regarding After a t r i a l , the t r i a l 22, 2012, s t a t i n g , i n part: "This i s a condemnation p r o c e e d i n g brought by the Madison County District Attorney's Office p u r s u a n t t o A l a b a m a Code [ 1 9 7 5 , ] § 20-2-93 s e e k i n g t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f T h r e e T h o u s a n d D o l l a r s ($3,000.00) i n U.S. C u r r e n c y a n d One (1) 2003 I n f i n i t i G35, ... seized f r o m J a r v i s Woods d u r i n g h i s a r r e s t f o r t r a f f i c k i n g i n cocaine. Darry Lee, the r e g i s t e r e d owner o f t h e v e h i c l e , was an I n t e r v e n o r i n t h i s a c t i o n . The c a s e was h e a r d o r e t e n u s on M a r c h 12, 2012. Woods e n t e r e d a C o n s e n t t o F o r f e i t u r e . ... 2 that 2110751 " B a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d b y t h e S t a t e and t h e i n f e r e n c e s a t t e n d a n t t h e r e t o , t h e C o u r t i s r e a s o n a b l y s a t i s f i e d t h a t t h e c u r r e n c y and v e h i c l e were u s e d i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e a n d t h a t t h e S t a t e p r e s e n t e d a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e . ... B a s e d upon t h e t e s t i m o n y o f [ a n i n v e s t i g a t o r ] t h a t t h i s same v e h i c l e h a d b e e n u n d e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n some s i x o r s e v e n months p r i o r as p a r t o f an d r u g i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g B i l l Oscar Lee, b r o t h e r t o D a r r y , and t h a t [the i n v e s t i g a t o r ] had spoken t o D a r r y Lee about B i l l Oscar Lee u s i n g t h e v e h i c l e and p u r c h a s i n g t h i s and o t h e r v e h i c l e s i n D a r r y L e e ' s name t o keep s a i d v e h i c l e s from b e i n g s e i z e d by t h e p o l i c e , t h e Court f i n d s t h a t [ D a r r y ] L e e i s n o t an ' i n n o c e n t o w n e r ' as contemplated by s t a t u t e . " I t i s t h e r e f o r e ORDERED, ADJUDGED a n d DECREED by the Court that t h e Three Thousand Dollars ($3,000.00) i n U.S. C u r r e n c y a n d One (1) 2003 I n f i n i t i G35 ... a r e d e c l a r e d c o n t r a b a n d a n d [ a r e ] hereby f o r f e i t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r use i n law enforcement. The vehicle i s awarded to the Huntsville Madison County Strategic Counterdrug Team." (Capitalization i noriginal.) notice of appeal t o t h i s On May 3, 2012, D a r r y f i l e d h i s court. Discussion Darry appeals only that part of the t r i a l judgment p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e f o r f e i t u r e o f t h e I n f i n i t i . judgment, the t r i a l court found ' i n n o c e n t owner'" o f t h e I n f i n i t i . language, Oscar that Darry " i s n o t an referring to B i l l of the I n f i n i t i , 3 In i t s The S t a t e c o n s t r u e s t h a t a l o n g w i t h t h e p r e c e d i n g language L e e as t h e p u r c h a s e r court's as a factual 2110751 finding that Darry d i d not O s c a r Lee did. interest i n the p u r s u e an w o u l d be 506, due t o be (Ala. circumstances, Oscar State Infiniti appeal of 510 Bill I f the the but that Bill and, thus, forfeiture App. See would lack standing j u d g m e n t , and Dobyne v. 2008). his State, However, 4 So. under those D a r r y was a as party. ( A l a . C i v . App. 3d 779 as registered indispensable 2010). finding the n o t an "innocent" drug-related a c t i v i t y . 2d 733 have generally of the Jester v. to owned t h e b e c a u s e he See indisputably Infiniti, was was but that aware o f i t s use S t a t e ex r e l . W a t k i n s v. appeal evidence State, who owner w i t h i n t h e m e a n i n g o f § ( A l a . C i v . App. standing sufficiency Darry, titleholder, 2 - 9 3 ( h ) , A l a . Code 1975, So. that See join be construed an 3d v. So. as to appeal t h e j u d g m e n t w o u l d be v o i d f o r f a i l i n g t o Lee no Hillbert 66 On would Infiniti, i s c o r r e c t , D a r r y w o u l d have dismissed. Civ. the t h e o t h e r hand, t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e j u d g m e n t c o u l d State, 894 own in 668 1995). 4 2004). the 2d that 822 to in Sellers, such case, judgment support So. In 20- contest Darry the finding. See (Ala. Civ. App. 2110751 B e c a u s e we a r e t o c o n s t r u e r a t h e r than t o defeat, 929 So. 2d 447, 457 their 25 validity, ( A l a . 2005) D e n t a l Exam'rs o f G e o r g i a , 254 j u d g m e n t s so as t o support, s e e Ex p a r t e (quoting Snider, C l a r k v. B o a r d o f 240 Ga. 289, 294, 240 S.E.2d 250, ( 1 9 7 7 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n B y r d v . Goodman, 195 Ga. 621, 621, S.E.2d 34, 35 (1943) ( S y l l a b u s by t h e Court)) ("'"When a j u d g m e n t i s s u s c e p t i b l e o f two m e a n i n g s , one o f w h i c h render will, i t illegal i f reasonably legal."'"), we does had been transport that the t r i a l t o appeal to the merits, not contain Infiniti construction court Darry sufficient used maintains evidence contention the that substance that the record that the or to f a c i l i t a t e to transport of a controlled intended t h e judgment. f o r f e i t u r e under § 20-2-293(a)(5), The that T h u s , we r e j e c t t h e S t a t e ' s lacks standing Turning proper, p o s s i b l e , be g i v e n i t t h a t w o u l d r e n d e r i t conclude l a t t e r meaning. Darry and t h e o t h e r would indicating the so as t o be s u b j e c t t o A l a . Code 1975. We a g r e e . e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n d i c a t e s t h a t , d u r i n g a 2010 surveillance operation, the State uncovered evidence i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Woods was s e l l i n g c o c a i n e o u t o f h i s residence and residence a r r e s t e d him. The I n f i n i t i 5 was p a r k e d a t t h a t 2110751 a t t h e t i m e o f Woods's a r r e s t . o f f i c e r that the I n f i n i t i it was titled the Infiniti b e l o n g e d t o B i l l Oscar Lee, a l t h o u g h i n Darry's I n f i n i t i ; however, Woods i n f o r m e d t h e a r r e s t i n g name, and t h a t Woods drove the the a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r d i d not f i n d drugs i n o r o b s e r v e Woods u s i n g i t to transport drugs. The a r r e s t i n g o f f i c e r a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was n o t aware o f any money b e i n g f o u n d i n t h e I n f i n i t i . the Madison earlier Police Department Oscar Bill Oscar knowledge and t h a t t h a t he owned t h e I n f i n i t i , Lee t o d r i v e that Bill the I n f i n i t i , Oscar Lee trafficking, and t h a t drug-related purposes t o Darry's record the I n f i n i t i the I n f i n i t i contains an Lee had t o l d him t h e keys to the was even that he a l l o w e d after involved acquiring in drug had n e v e r been used f o r knowledge. no d i r e c t e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t h a d b e e n u s e d t o f a c i l i t a t e any v i o l a t i o n o f t h e controlled-substance that Oscar during h a d b e e n s e i z e d i n a s e a r c h o f B i l l O s c a r L e e ' s home. Darry t e s t i f i e d The that, t h a t the o f f i c e r had observed B i l l Lee d r i v i n g t h e I n f i n i t i , Infiniti Bill testified i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n 2009, t h a t he owned t h e I n f i n i t i , An i n v e s t i g a t o r w i t h known d r u g laws. traffickers At worst, the evidence i n d i c a t e s sometimes 6 drove the Infiniti. 2110751 That e v i d e n c e a l o n e , however, i s not s u f f i c i e n t c i r c u m s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o p r o v e t h a t t h e I n f i n i t i was purposes. See Harris v. State, 821 ever used f o r i l l e g a l So. 2d 177, 185 2001) (although the S t a t e proved t h a t drug t r a f f i c k e r owned automobile absence of that evidence was of titled in a illegal relative's drugs in the (Ala. actually name, i n automobile, e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t i l l e g a l d r u g s had b e e n t r a n s p o r t e d i n the automobile, or evidence that the automobile purchased w i t h funds d e r i v e d from i l l e g a l c i r c u i t c o u r t committed drug had been transactions, p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r i n o r d e r i n g f o r f e i t u r e of automobile). "'In a § 20-2-93, A l a . Code 1975, forfeiture proceeding, the State may e s t a b l i s h a p r i m a f a c i e c a s e by s h o w i n g t h a t t h e i t e m t o be f o r f e i t e d was u s e d , o r i n t e n d e d t o be u s e d , i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e Alabama U n i f o r m C o n t r o l l e d Substances A c t . C u l p e p p e r v. S t a t e , 587 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1991) . The s t a n d a r d o f t h a t p r o o f i s r e a s o n a b l e s a t i s f a c t i o n . Agee v. S t a t e ex r e l . G a l a n o s , 627 So. 2d 960 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1993) Harris, 821 So. W h e t s t o n e , 674 2d So. at 185 2d 1301, ( q u o t i n g Robbs v. 1302 S t a t e ex r e l . ( A l a . C i v . App. 1995)). " [ W ] h e r e , as h e r e , t h e t r i a l court entered judgment a f t e r h e a r i n g d i s p u t e d o r a l t e s t i m o n y , ore tenus s t a n d a r d a p p l i e s t o our r e v i e w of t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , and we w i l l 7 its the the not 2110751 d i s t u r b i t s j u d g m e n t b a s e d on t h o s e f i n d i n g s u n l e s s t h o s e f i n d i n g s a r e p l a i n l y a n d p a l p a b l y wrong a n d not supported by t h e evidence." $3,011 i n United 813-14 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 2 ) . We conclude States that C u r r e n c y v. S t a t e , the t r i a l court 845 So. 2d 810, committed plain and p a l p a b l e e r r o r i n s o f a r as i t f o u n d t h a t t h e I n f i n i t i s h o u l d be forfeited. the case We t h e r e f o r e r e v e r s e f o r the entry t h e j u d g m e n t , a n d we remand o f a judgment c o n s i s t e n t w i t h this opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH Thompson, INSTRUCTIONS. P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 8 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,
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.
