State of Alabama v. Thanh Nguyen et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/20/09 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, 2009-2010 2080820 S t a t e o f Alabama v. Thanh Nguyen e t a l . Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-912) THOMAS, J u d g e . The Court's State order evidence." o f Alabama granting appeals Thanh from Nguyen's We d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l . the Mobile "motion to Circuit suppress 2080820 On A p r i l 25, 2008, t h e M o b i l e C o u n t y S h e r i f f ' s D e p a r t m e n t e x e c u t e d a s e a r c h w a r r a n t and s e i z e d t h e f o l l o w i n g i t e m s from Nguyen's r e s i d e n c e : $ 1 , 0 3 7 i n c a s h , s e v e n p l a s m a t e l e v i s i o n s , two DVD/CD p l a y e r s , automobile. various electronic a c c e s s o r i e s , and an A d e p u t y s h e r i f f f i l e d an a f f i d a v i t i n s u p p o r t o f t h e i s s u a n c e o f t h e s e a r c h w a r r a n t ; t h e a f f i d a v i t was b a s e d on information provided by confidential informants. to the sheriff's department On May 9, 2008, t h e S t a t e f i l e d a c i v i l - f o r f e i t u r e action r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e i z e d c u r r e n c y and i t e m s p u r s u a n t t o § 2 0 - 2 ¬ 93, A l a . Code 1975. "motion On November to suppress" the evidence On A p r i l 1, 2009, t h e t r i a l suppress" the evidence that the search affidavit warrant confidential therefore, cause 20, failed informants t h a t the state a of that the seized their failed currency Nguyen. 2 the i s s u a n c e of specific f o r i s s u i n g the search warrant. ordered to from h i s r e s i d e n c e , f i n d i n g received affidavit a s e i z e d from h i s r e s i d e n c e . i n support to filed c o u r t g r a n t e d Nguyen's " m o t i o n collected filed 2008, Nguyen and to time that information establish the the and, probable As a r e s u l t , t h e c o u r t items be returned to 2080820 On April forfeiture Rule the 13, 2009, the action, without 41 ( a ) ( 2 ) , State moved a c t i o n on t h e same d a y . 1 The t r i a l On A p r i l f i l e d a postjudgment motion, pursuant P., r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e t r i a l On May 11, postjudgment appeal finding the 2009, court dismissed 22, 2009, the State t o R u l e 59, A l a . R. C i v . court vacate both i t s A p r i l 1, trial The court State filed denied the a timely State's notice of c o u r t on June 5, 2009. S t a t e a r g u e s on a p p e a l that the t r i a l court erred i n that the a f f i d a v i t f i l e d i n support of the issuance of search warrant Rule 41(a)(2) 1 to and i t s o r d e r d i s m i s s i n g t h e a c t i o n . the motion. to this The order dismiss i t s p r e j u d i c e , apparently pursuant A l a . R. C i v . P. 2009, s u p p r e s s i o n to was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support a finding provides: "Except as p r o v i d e d i n paragraph ( 1 ) of t h i s s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h i s r u l e , an a c t i o n s h a l l n o t be d i s m i s s e d a t t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s i n s t a n c e s a v e upon order of the court a n d upon such t e r m s and conditions as t h e c o u r t deems p r o p e r . If a c o u n t e r c l a i m has been p l e a d e d by a d e f e n d a n t p r i o r t o t h e s e r v i c e upon t h e d e f e n d a n t o f t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s , t h e a c t i o n may be d i s m i s s e d b u t the counterclaim shall remain pending for adjudication by the court. Unless otherwise specified i n t h e order, a d i s m i s s a l under this paragraph i s without p r e j u d i c e . " 3 of 2080820 probable appeal cause to conduct the the suppress" trial pursuant However, R u l e 15.7 forfeiture 612 So. court's to 497, Rule to to 15.7(a), 500 civil matter. (Ala. Civ. " a c t i o n s brought under § actions"). State purports g r a n t i n g Nguyen's " m o t i o n order The Ala. R. Crim. Generally, See App. 20-2-93 a r e in a civil 3 Griffin v. R u l e 15.7(a) 2 State, 1992)(holding considered that t o be a c t i o n , a p a r t y can o n l y f r o m a f i n a l j u d g m e n t . § 12-22-2, A l a . Code 1975; 2 P. applies only to c r i m i n a l matters; a c i v i l - action i s a 2d search. civil appeal P i k e v. provides: " I n any c a s e i n v o l v i n g a f e l o n y , a m i s d e m e a n o r , o r a v i o l a t i o n , an a p p e a l may be t a k e n by t h e s t a t e t o the Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals from a p r e - t r i a l order o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t (1) s u p p r e s s i n g a c o n f e s s i o n o r admission or other evidence, (2) d i s m i s s i n g an i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , or complaint ( o r any p a r t o f an i n d i c t m e n t , i n f o r m a t i o n , o r c o m p l a i n t ) , o r (3) q u a s h i n g an a r r e s t o r s e a r c h w a r r a n t . Such an a p p e a l may be t a k e n o n l y i f t h e p r o s e c u t o r c e r t i f i e s t o t h e Court of C r i m i n a l Appeals t h a t the appeal i s not b r o u g h t f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f d e l a y and t h a t t h e o r d e r , i f n o t r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l , w i l l be f a t a l t o t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e c h a r g e . ... " R u l e 1.1, A l a . R. C r i m . P., p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e R u l e s C r i m i n a l P r o c e d u r e " s h a l l g o v e r n t h e p r a c t i c e and p r o c e d u r e all c r i m i n a l proceedings i n a l l c o u r t s of the S t a t e Alabama, and p o l i t i c a l subdivisions thereof, except o t h e r w i s e p r o v i d e d by c o u r t r u l e . " 3 4 of in of as 2080820 Reed 3 So. 3d 201, the only f i n a l the t r i a l "It trial judgment from which i s well settled is consequently, v. Scott, reviewable 375 McCulloch (1973); and 240 So. 2d 674 483 So. 2d 398, to So. v. to on 2d T y s o n v. U.S. (1970)). 399 appeal." See 797 290 Pipe case, action. adverse assignment 796, In t h i s Mobile ruling of of error Fuel and, Shipping, ( A l a . C i v . App. A l a . 303, 276 & F o u n d r y Co., the So. 286 1979) 2d Ala. a l s o L e w i s v. P r o v i d e n c e ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) ( c i t i n g M c C u l l o c h v. 425 425, Hosp., Roberts, ( h o l d i n g t h a t the p l a i n t i f f c o u l d not appeal a d i s m i s s a l which adverse both parties had consented r u l i n g by t h e t r i a l voluntary 41(a)(2)[,Fed. dismissal R. Civ. because there was no court). "Ordinarily a plaintiff a an Roberts, 2008). the S t a t e c o u l d appeal i s t h a t o n l y an subject (citing supra ( A l a . C i v . App. c o u r t ' s order d i s m i s s i n g the court Inc. 203 cannot a p p e a l an o r d e r g r a n t i n g without P.]." 4 Versa prejudice Prods., under Inc. v. Rule Home I n M c B r a y e r v. Hokes B l u f f A u t o P a r t s , 685 So. 2d 763, 765 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 6 ) ( q u o t i n g C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m v. C i t y o f F a i r f i e l d , 396 So. 2d 692, 696 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) , t h i s c o u r t stated: 4 " ' [ O u r Supreme C o u r t has] s a i d t h a t s i n c e t h e A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e a r e m o d e l e d on t h e 5 2080820 D e p o t , USA, the United Inc., States 387 F.3d 1325, 1327 Court of Appeals (11th C i r . 2004). f o r the E l e v e n t h As Circuit explained: "A v o l u n t a r y d i s m i s s a l w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e ' d o e s n o t q u a l i f y as an i n v o l u n t a r y a d v e r s e j u d g m e n t so f a r as t h e p l a i n t i f f i s c o n c e r n e d . ' [ L e Compte v. Mr. C h i p , I n c . , 520 F.2d 601] a t 603 [ ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 7 6 ) ] ( q u o t i n g 5 James Wm. Moore, e t a l . , M o o r e ' s F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e 5 4 1 . 0 5 ( 3 ) a t 1060 (2d ed. 1 9 7 5 ) ) . ' T h i s can e a s i l y be u n d e r s t o o d s i n c e t h e p l a i n t i f f has a c q u i r e d t h a t w h i c h he s o u g h t , t h e d i s m i s s a l o f h i s a c t i o n and t h e r i g h t t o b r i n g a l a t e r s u i t on t h e same c a u s e o f a c t i o n , w i t h o u t a d j u d i c a t i o n of the m e r i t s . ' I d . " Id. at State's 1327. There no adverse ruling is no adverse r u l i n g support the justiciable a g a i n s t the [ a p p e l l a n t ] , controversy d e c i d e . ' " W i l l i a m s v. C o n t i n e n t a l O i l Co., ( A l a . 1980) In t h i s to appeal. " ' T h e r e b e i n g no there is this court to 131 387 So. 2d 130, ( q u o t i n g M o b i l e F u e l S h i p p i n g , 375 So. 2d a t case, dismissal. requested, for the S t a t e moved f o r a d i s m i s s a l and Because the the S t a t e has State received the f a i l e d to demonstrate a received relief a i t justiciable F e d e r a l Rules of C i v i l Procedure, f e d e r a l d e c i s i o n s a r e h i g h l y p e r s u a s i v e when we a r e c a l l e d upon t o c o n s t r u e the Alabama r u l e s . A s s u r e d I n v e s t o r s L i f e I n s . Co. v. N a t i o n a l U n i o n A s s o c i a t e s , 362 So. 2d 228 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . ' " 6 797). 2080820 controversy. See Williams, 387 So. 2d at 131; see also C o p e l a n d v. W i l l i a m s o n , 402 So. 2d 932, 934 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ( c i t i n g Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e , 5 41.02(6), pp. 41-43) ( s t a t i n g t h a t a p l a i n t i f f who v o l u n t a r i l y moves t o d i s m i s s an a c t i o n h a s no standing to appeal). Therefore, we dismiss the State's appeal. APPEAL DISMISSED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n Moore, J . , c o n c u r s and B r y a n , J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 7 writing.

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.