State of Louisiana v. Property seized from Gregory Cox
State of Louisiana v. Property seized from Gregory Cox, No. 2020CW0901 (La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. Dec. 22, 2020).
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. $144,320.00 Tina Beers 105 So. 3d 694
- State v. $29,940.00 in U.S. Currency 227 So. 3d 304
- State v. 2003 Infiniti G35 VIN JNKCV51E93MO24167 27 So. 3d 824
Opinion text
STATE OF LOUISIANA
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2020 CW 0901
VERSUS
PROPERTY SEIZED FROM GREGORY COX DECEMBER 22, 2020
In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,
23rd Judicial District Court, Parish of Ascension, No.
114043.
BEFORE: McDONALD, McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, AND PENZATO, JJ.
WRIT GRANTED. The district court' s August 21, 2020
judgment, denying relator, the State of Louisiana' s, Motion to
Strike, is reversed. Respondent, Jonathon Alan Barrett, failed
to comply with the mandatory requirements of La. R. S.
40: 2610( B)( 4) & ( 6) by failing to provide specific information
concerning " the date, identity of the transferor, and the
circumstances of [ his] acquisition of the interest in the
property." See State v. $ 144, 320. 00, 2012- 0466 ( La. 12/ 4/ 12),
105 So. 3d 694 & State v. $ 29, 940. 00 in U. S. Currency, 2017- 648
La. App. 3d Cir. 8/ 31/ 17), 227 So. 3d 304. Accordingly, the
State of Louisiana' s Motion to Strike is granted and respondent
Barrett' s claim is stricken from the underlying forfeiture
proceeding.
JMM
PMc
AHP
Holdridge and Chutz, JJ., dissent. Unlike State v. 2003
Infinity G35, 2009- 1193 ( La 1/ 20/ 10), 27 So. 3d 824, and State v.
144, 320. 00, 201.2- 0466 ( La 12/ 4/ 12), 105 So. 3d 694 ( where there
was no proof of who owned the property in question), in this
case the trial court made a factual finding that the money in
question belonged to Mr. Barrett, a third party, and it was not
money that could be properly seized by the State. In fact, the
court made a determination that the money was earned by Mr.
Barrett from his employment and that it was his accumulated
savings from that employment. Since the trial court has made a
factual determination of the ownership of the money by a third
party, any attempt to seize those assets by the State because of
a technical violation of La. R. S. 40: 2610 would be illegal and
unconstitutional.
COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT
DEPUTY LINRK OF COURT
FOR THE COURT