State v. Salerno
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS STATE OF ARIZONA DIVISION ONE STATE OF ARIZONA, Appellee, v. FOX JOSEPH SALERNO, Appellant. 1 CA-CR 06-0661 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) DEPARTMENT A O P I N I O N FILED 7-12-07 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County Cause No. CR 2001-011340 The Honorable Arthur T. Anderson, Judge VACATED AND REMANDED Terry Goddard, Attorney General by Randall M. Howe, Chief Counsel, Criminal Appeals Section and Katia Méhu, Assistant Attorney General Attorneys for Appellee Phoenix Fox Joseph Salerno Appellant Florence I R V I N E, Judge ¶1 Fox Joseph Salerno appeals the trial court s order denying his motion for release of seized property because the statute of limitations was still charges relating to the property. open on possible criminal Salerno contends that by refusing to release the property, the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights. The State claims court lacks jurisdiction to consider this appeal. this We find that we have jurisdiction and the trial court should have considered Salerno s legal claims. order denying Therefore, we vacate the trial court s Salerno s motion and remand for further proceedings consistent with this decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ¶2 Salerno currently is in the custody of the Arizona Department of Corrections based alleged in the current case. seizure of Salerno s on charges other than those The case before us relates to the property prior to the grand jury s indictment on July 27, 2001, charging Salerno with 23 criminal counts related to crimes committed against businesses. indictment alleged that the offenses December 5, 2000 and April 25, 2001. were committed This between Subsequently, the State filed a motion to dismiss the indictment and the court dismissed the case without prejudice on November 29, 2001. The court ordered that counsel for the State shall advise defense counsel and the defendant regarding the disposition of the defendant s property seized in this offense. ¶3 Following the dismissal of the case, Salerno, acting without an attorney, filed a motion with the court to return the seized property. Salerno s motion argued that the court dismissed the case concerning the seized property, the seized 2 items were not illegal in nature, the State seized the items illegally and the original search warrant was invalid. The trial court denied Salerno s motion. ¶4 Salerno filed another motion with the court renewing his motion to release the seized property. The court again denied Salerno s motion, directing Salerno to proceed under the statutes regarding disposition of seized property. See Ariz. Rev. Stat. ( A.R.S. ) §§ 13-4301 to -4315 (2001 & Supp. 2006).1 Salerno continued to pursue the issue, but did not specifically proceed under the statutes regarding disposition of seized a motion property. ¶5 On April 14, 2006, Salerno again filed requesting the court to issue an order releasing the seized property. He informed the court that the two police departments that were holding the property would not release the property without a court order. The State responded in opposition, arguing that the statute of limitations to file charges had not expired. On July 27, 2006, the court denied the motion for release of property because the Statute of Limitations has not expired. 2 Salerno filed a timely notice of appeal. 1 These statutes allow the State to initiate a cause of action in a forfeiture case. Here, the State has not initiated such action. See A.R.S. § 13-4302 (2001). 2 The record indicates that the State has not re-filed any criminal proceedings relating to Salerno s property. 3 DISCUSSION ¶6 Salerno argues three issues: (1) the statute of limitations for prosecution expired, (2) the trial court abused its to discretion by denying his motion return the seized property and (3) the trial court violated his constitutional and statutory rights (A.R.S. §§ 13-3920 to -3922 (2001)) by allowing the State to continue in possession of his property. ¶7 The State contends that we do not have jurisdiction to address this appeal. It also contends that the property at issue is evidence that the State can hold and use until the statute of limitations expires for prosecution in 2008. In essence, the State argues that it is allowed to retain property for seven years, although no prosecution is pending. We discuss each argument in turn. A. ¶8 review JURISDICTION The State first argues that we lack jurisdiction to the trial court s release seized property. order denying Salerno s motion to The State frames the issue as a denial of a motion to release evidence and states that such denial is not an appealable order affecting Salerno s substantial rights pursuant to A.R.S. § 13-4033(A)(2) (2001). ¶9 We disagree. First, the Arizona Supreme Court made it clear in Greehling v. State, 135 Ariz. 498, 499-500, 662 P.2d 1005, 1007 (1982), that an appellate court has jurisdiction over an order 4 denying a motion for return of property pursuant to A.R.S. § 122101 (2003). Although the supreme court was answering the narrow question of whether an adverse ruling in a proceeding brought under A.R.S. § 13-39223 could be reviewed by direct appeal, the analysis is equally applicable to a general motion for return of property. Id. at 498, 662 P.2d at 1006. The supreme court reasoned that a motion for return of property is civil in nature and such an appeal would be governed by civil appeals. Id. at 499, 662 P.2d at 1007. Thus, denying a motion for return of property is a final judgment, leaving no question remaining for judicial determination. Id. at 500, 662 P.2d at 1007; see also A.R.S. § 12-2101(D) (stating that an appeal may be taken from any order affecting a substantial right made in any action when the order in effect determines the action and prevents judgment from which an appeal might be taken ). ¶10 P.3d Next, In re Approximately $50,000.00, 196 Ariz. 626, 2 1271 (App. 2000), held that property is an appealable order. an order regarding seized The defendant claimed that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction over the appeal, reasoning 3 Arizona Revised Statutes § 13-3922 allows an owner of seized property to controvert the grounds on which a warrant was issued. It provides that the magistrate shall hold a hearing and if the magistrate finds that the property seized was not described in the warrant or at the time of seizure no probable cause existed for the items subject to seizure, the property shall be returned to the owner unless possession of the property would constitute a criminal offense. 5 that an order to return seized property is not a final judgment because the statute of limitations for initiating forfeiture is seven years. Id. at 628, ¶ 4, 2 P.3d at 1273. The defendant claimed that the court s order was merely an intermediate order allowing her to possess the property in question until the State decided whether to file a forfeiture proceeding. not agree. Id. We did We reasoned that [i]n ordering the state to return [appellant s] property, the trial court granted her the sole relief she sought. case. Id. interpretation ¶ Hence, its order was the final order in the 5. that This the court State could rejected not the appeal defendant s the court s ruling until the final resolution of a forfeiture action or until the statute of limitations for filing criminal charges expired. Id. Accordingly, this court determined that time remaining within the statute of limitations is not sufficient to prevent appellate jurisdiction over a motion to return property. ¶11 Finally, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that federal court jurisdiction exists if a motion is solely for the return of property and is in no way tied to a criminal prosecution in esse [in actual existence] against the movant. Di Bella v. United States, 369 U.S. 121, 132 (1962); see United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 533 (1971) (finding that review is available immediately of a denial of a motion for return of seized property, 6 where there is no criminal prosecution pending against the movant ). We find this reasoning persuasive in determining state court jurisdiction. ¶12 affects Here, the Salerno s court s substantial order right denying to Salerno s possess his motion property. Salerno does not have any further recourse at the trial court, thus making the trial court s order a final appealable order. We agree with the reasoning in Approximately $50,000.00 that the statute of limitations argument alone is not enough to divest us of jurisdiction. retain an The State does not have an absolute right to individual s property, and Salerno does not have recourse against such State action without an appellate remedy. ¶13 In this case, the trial court dismissed Salerno s case in November 2001. Neither the record nor the State s brief indicates that the State has taken any action to re-file the prosecution proceedings against against Salerno the or property. has initiated According to forfeiture Salerno the prosecutor stated that this matter is closed and will not be re-filed. The State did not provide any legitimate or rational reason to allow the State to retain the property such as a pending investigation, forfeiture proceedings. re-filing the charges or initiating Thus, the record before us indicates that the trial court ruled solely on a motion for return of property, resulting in a final appealable order. Although Salerno filed this appeal as a criminal appeal, he referenced 7 § 13-3922 in his April 20, 2006 motion to order released property, preserving the issue for appeal. ¶14 Consequently, we reject the State s assertion that we lack jurisdiction to decide this case. We find the purpose of Salerno s motion was solely to seek the return of property, thus allowing us to exercise jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. § 122101. B. ¶15 ARGUMENTS Salerno contends that the seven year statute of limitations has expired because the alleged crimes occurred in March of 1998 and 1999. The record, however, does not support Salerno s recollection of dates. The July 27, 2001 indictment indicated that the alleged crimes occurred between December 5, 2000 and April 25, 2001. Thus, the statute of limitations has not expired for the crimes alleged in the original indictment. ¶16 Salerno next argues that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion to release the seized property. The court s ruling relied only on the fact that the statute of limitations for bringing criminal charges had not expired when it denied Salerno s motion. ¶17 We conclude that the State cannot retain property simply by asserting that the statute of limitations has not expired. The State s reliance on the statute of limitations implies that the State can retain property for an indeterminate 8 period of time without any justification. Approximately assert $50,000.00, statutory or however, constitutional cannot be so easily brushed aside. P.3d at 1275-76 a (recognizing As we recognized in property claims claimant to property may that 196 Ariz. at 630-31, ¶ 11, 2 that nothing in the forfeiture statute precludes a person from seeking the return of property when the state has seized or retains it in violation of due process. ); see also State v. Gambling Equip., 45 Ariz. 112, 116, 40 P.2d 746, 747 (1935) ( Often, and we think it is generally the practice, where property has come into a court or magistrate s possession in aid of a criminal prosecution, it is restored to its rightful owner when no longer needed, if there is no dispute as to its ownership. ). ¶18 Salerno claimed violations based on A.R.S. § 13-3922 and the constitution. Salerno has not been provided a hearing regarding the status of his property under either A.R.S. § 133922 or the due process clause of the constitution. has retained without the re-filing property the in question since charges relating to The State November such 2001, property initiating forfeiture proceedings against the property. or Because Salerno has raised specific legal claims to the property, we find the trial court s denial of Salerno s motion based solely on the statute of limitations is insufficient. 9 ¶19 The State must articulate some valid legal basis for allowing it to withhold Salerno s property without any pending criminal prosecution or forfeiture proceedings. Even if the search and seizure were valid, eliminating Salerno s A.R.S. § 13-3922 argument, the State does not have absolute discretion to retain property indefinitely. By retaining Salerno s property, the State has effected a de facto forfeiture without allowing Salerno due process rights under the forfeiture statutes. See Approximately $50,000.00, 196 Ariz. at 631, ¶ 11, 2 P.3d at 1276; see also United States v. 608 Taylor Ave., 584 F.2d 1297, 1302 (3d Cir. 1978) (stating that the government may not retain seized property indefinitely because the result is a de facto forfeiture without due process and motion for return of property should be granted once criminal proceedings to which it relates have ended). ¶20 The Third Circuit, in 608 Taylor Avenue, reviewed caselaw from various circuits and determined that [i]mplicit in these cases is the basic proposition that the government must have some interest in seized property in order to retain it. 584 F.2d at 1303. Here, if the State intends to re-file the charges or initiate forfeiture proceedings it may be able to assert a valid reason for holding the property. The State must, however, do more than simply assert the statute of limitations. 10 CONCLUSION ¶21 We vacate the trial court s order denying Salerno s motion and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this decision. __________________________________ PATRICK IRVINE, Judge CONCURRING: _________________________________ JON W. THOMPSON, Presiding Judge _________________________________ G. MURRAY SNOW, Judge 11
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.
