State of Louisiana VS Bobby Matthews, Jr.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL FIRST CIRCUIT NO 2009 CA 2319 STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS BOBBY MATTHEWS JR Judgment rendered AUG 3 2010 Appealed from the 22nd Judicial District Court n and for the Parish of Washington Louisiana Trial Court No 95 564 Honorable Reginald T Badeaux III Judge HON WALTER P REED ATTORNEYS FOR DISTRICT ATTORNEY STATE OF LOUISIANA JESSICA JENKINS BREWSTER PLAINTIFF 2ND APPELLANT ASST DISTRICT ATTORNEY FRANKLINTON LA BOBBY 0 MATTHEWS JR ST GABRIEL LA IN PROPER PERSON DEFENDANT1ST APPELLANT BEFORE CARTER C GUIDRY AND PETTIGREW JJ J PETTIGREW J Bobby Matthews Jr appeals a judgment of forfeiture rendered in favor of the State of Louisiana against State a 1994 Chevrolet S10 pickup Truck VIN 1GCCS1945R8147562 in an in rem proceeding initiated pursuant to the Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property Forfeiture Act of 1989 La R 40 S 2601 et seq the Forfeiture Act The State of Louisiana appeals the same judgment in which the trial court denied forfeiture of 327 from Mr Matthews that was seized in addition 00 to the 1994 Chevrolet pickup truck For the following reasons we affirm the judgment of the trial court Following a narcotics investigation officers with the Washington Parish Drug Task Force conducted a traffic stop on North Avenue just east of Sullivan Drive in Bogalusa Louisiana on February 22 2007 on a black 1994 Chevrolet S10 pickup truck bearing VIN 1GCCS1945R8147562 In connection with this stop officers recovered three large rocklike substances suspected to be crack cocaine and a small amount of marijuana together with the sum of 327 00 The State through the assistant district attorney for the 22 Judicial District served a notice of pending forfeiture and a petition for forfeiture pursuant to La R S 2601 40 etseq seeking forfeiture of 327 in U currency and a 1994 Chevrolet S10 00 S pickup truck bearing VIN 1GCCS1945R8147562 Mr Matthews filed an answer and objection to the petition for forfeiture wherein he alleged he had been the victim of an illegal stop and search predicated on profiling and harassment of persons of his age group and complexion The matter then proceeded to trial After considering the testimony and evidence the trial court found that the 1994 Chevrolet S 10 pickup truck bearing VIN 1GCCS1945R8147562 seized from Mr Matthews had been used to facilitate conduct giving rise to forfeiture pursuant to La R 40 S 2604 and entered judgment in favor of the State against said vehicle The trial court further found in favor of Mr Matthews with respect to the seized currency and ordered that the 327 in U 00 S currency seized from Mr Matthews be released and returned with interest judgment Mr Matthews and the State have filed separate appeals 2 From this In connection with his appeal in this matter Mr Matthews does not set forth any assignments of error but appears to contest the sufficiency of the evidence relative to the forfeiture of his truck The State urges that the portion of the trial court judgment that s denied the forfeiture of the 327 in U currency seized from Mr Matthews be 00 S reversed and that the judgment in all other respects be affirmed DISCUSSION The Seizure and Controlled Dangerous Substances Property Forfeiture Act of 1989 La R 40 et seq the Act S 2601 sets forth procedures for the forfeiture of property that is furnished by any person in exchange for a controlled dangerous substance in violation of R 40 961 the Louisiana Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law S Pursuant to the Act property used or intended to be used in any manner to facilitate conduct in violation of the Controlled Dangerous Substances Law is subject to forfeiture upon the commission of an act or omission punishable by confinement for more than one year pursuant to La R 40 et seq See La R 40 S 961 S 2603 1and 2604 b 2 The initial burden is on the State to show probable cause for the forfeiture and the evidence presented must be sufficient to form a reasonable ground for the belief that the property was connected with illegal drug transactions State v Watkins 080688 p 3 La App 1 Cir 9 994 So 675 677 In this case the State must show by 08 23 2d some credible evidence and by more than mere suspicion a reasonable ground for the belief that the currency seized from Mr Matthews was drug related and that Mr Matthews pickup truck was used or available for use to facilitate the alleged drug transactions State v Cash Totaling 15 623 So 114 121 La App 1 00 156 2d Cir writ denied 629 So 401 La 1993 If the State makes this initial showing the 2d burden shifts to the claimant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence i it is more e likely than not that the property is not subject to forfeiture La R 40 If the S 2612 G claimant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the claimant and the property are not connected to the drug activity and therefore exempt under La R 40 the S 2605 court shall order the interest in the property returned or conveyed to the claimant La S 2612 R 40 H 3 While the ultimate determination of probable cause is a legal question the findings of fact which lead to a probable cause determination are subject to the manifestly erroneous clearly wrong standard 03 17 4 854 So 910 912 2d State v Gauthier 02 1227 p 3 La App 3 Cir Thus much deference must be given to the factual findings of the trial court as long as a review of the record as a whole shows those findings were reasonably supported Id Vehicle Forfeiture With respect to the judgment of forfeiture issued by the trial court as to Mr Matthews pickup truck the record reflects that in both his trial testimony and his brief to this court Mr Matthews admitted he utilized said vehicle to transport illegal drugs for his personal use Accordingly the trial court found the pick up truck belonging to Mr Matthews subject to seizure Based upon the evidence and the admissions made by Mr Matthews we must conclude that Mr Matthews has not met his burden of proving manifest error or abuse of discretion in the trial court ruling on the truck forfeiture s Forfeiture of Currency As to the issue raised by the State ithat the trial court erred in denying its e request for forfeiture of the 327 in U currency seized from Mr Matthews we note 00 S that the State has not assigned as error the trial court award of judicial interest on the s seized currency which the court directed be returned to Mr Matthews In support of its position the State cites and relies on La R 40 S 2611 Gand H which provide G The fact that money or a negotiable instrument was found in proximity to contraband or an instrumentality of conduct giving rise to forfeiture shall give rise to the permissible inference that the money or negotiable instrument was the proceeds of conduct giving rise to forfeiture or was used or intended to be used to facilitate the conduct H There shall also be a rebuttable presumption that any property of a person is subject to forfeiture under this Section if the state establishes all of the following 1 That the person has engaged in conduct giving rise to forfeiture 2 That the property was acquired by the person during the period of the conduct giving rise to forfeiture or within a reasonable time after that period 1 In our previous opinion in Watkins this court held that legal interest is not awardable on monies improperly seized pursuant to the Act Watkins 080688 at p 5 994 So at 678 2d 4 3 That there was no likely source for the property other than the conduct giving rise to forfeiture The State urged that it was entitled to the rebuttable presumptions set forth in La S 2611 R 40 and that Mr Matthews failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut those presumptions In its brief to this court the State argues that the sum of 327 in cash 00 was found on Mr Matthews at the time he was arrested while transporting drugs in his vehicle Mr Matthews defense at the hearing was that he earned the money in question through small temporary jobs The State contended that while Mr Matthews produced earning records for the years 2003 through 2006 he failed to produce evidence of income in 2007 the year in which this incident occurred Accordingly the State claimed there was no credible evidence to support Mr Matthews assertion that the money was obtained through lawful employment As part of its transcribed oral reasons for judgment the trial court concluded I am going to give you the money back because I can see where the t State has met their burden I can say I convinced that the money t m was obtained through an illegal source You can pick up that much money in a couple of days just doing a little heavy yard work I going to order that you return the money m Plus any interest it may have earned Based upon our review of the record in this matter we cannot say that the trial court committed manifest error in finding that the 327 in U currency seized from 00 S Mr Matthews did not constitute proceeds of illegal conduct nor was it used or intended to be used to facilitate illegal conduct pursuant to La R 40 etseq S 2601 CONCLUSION For the above and foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed Appeal costs in the amount of 689 shall be assessed equally against the 75 State and the claimant Bobby Matthews Jr AFFIRMED 5
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.
