State of Louisiana William E. Tilley, District Attorney v. James Henry Jones

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

05-491

STATE OF LOUISIANA
WILLIAM E. TILLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY

VERSUS

JAMES HENRY JONES

**********
APPEAL FROM THE
THIRTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
PARISH OF VERNON, NO. 60,268 & 61,515
HONORABLE VERNON B. CLARK, DISTRICT JUDGE
**********

GLENN B. GREMILLION
JUDGE

**********

Court composed of Glenn B. Gremillion, J. David Painter, and James T. Genovese,
Judges.

AFFIRMED.

Hon. William E. Tilley
District Attorney - 30th JDC
P.O. Box 1188
Leesville, LA 71446-1188
(337) 239-2008
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee:
State of Louisiana

James Henry Jones
J.L.D.C.C.
4 West 19, 1453 15th St.
Pineville, LA 71360
In Proper Person:
James Henry Jones

GREMILLION, Judge.

The defendant, James Henry Jones, appeals from the judgment of the

trial court denying his motion to recover his vehicle, which was seized in conjunction

with his arrest on drug charges. For the following reasons, we affirm.

FACTS

On February 22, 2001, two vehicles were stopped by the Vernon Parish

Narcotic Task Force on Louisiana Highway 171 North at Research Station Road. A

1994 Cadillac Deville was owned by Jones, but was being operated by Elbert

Marbury, IV. A 1987 Cadillac Deville was owned by Marbury, but was being

operated and occupied by Jonathan Paul Holmes and Glenn Michael Holmes,

respectively. Upon questioning Marbury and the Holmeses, the officers determined

that Jones had hired the other three to accompany him to Houston, Texas, in order to

purchase and transport marijuana back to Leesville. A search of the 1987 Cadillac

revealed approximately five pounds of marijuana. Although Jones was not arrested

immediately, the officers determined that he was the ringleader of the operation and

later arrested him and confiscated his vehicle. He was later convicted on the charge

of conspiracy to possess marijuana, with the intent to distribute, and was sentenced

to twelve years at hard labor and fined $2500.

On March 9, 2001, a Warrant of Seizure Pending Forfeiture was issued

by the trial court ordering the seizure of the 1994 Cadillac, the marijuana, and a Nokia

cellular telephone. On April 10, 2001, a Judgment of Forfeiture was rendered in

favor of the State. On November 30, 2004, Jones filed a Motion for Return of Seized

1

Property seeking the return of the 1994 Cadillac. This motion was denied by the trial

court on December 8, 2004. Jones’ appeal followed.

FORFEITURE

The forfeiture of items seized in conjunction with drug charges is

provided for in Chapter 26 of Title 40. La.R.S. 40:2601 et. seq. Pursuant to La.R.S.

40:2608(1)(a), a district attorney has 120 days in which to initiate forfeiture

proceedings against property seized in accordance with this chapter by sending a

Notice of Pending Forfeiture to the property’s owner or interest holder.

Notice is effective upon personal service, publication, or the
mailing of a written notice, whichever is earlier, and shall include a
description of the property, the date and place of seizure, the conduct
giving rise to forfeiture or the violation of law alleged, and a summary
of procedures and procedural rights applicable to the forfeiture action.

La.R.S. 40:2608(4).

Jones, representing himself in proper person, argues that the trial court’s

judgment is in derogation of La.R.S. 40:2608, as it fails to show the date and place

of the 1994 Cadillac’s seizure. However, his Motion for Return of Seized Property

was not filed until November 30, 2004. Louisiana Revised Statute 40:2610 provides

that an owner of an interest in property seized for forfeiture must file a claim within

thirty days of receiving the Notice of Pending Forfeiture. The statute further provides

that “[n]o extension of time for the filing of a claim shall be granted.” Id. The trial

court rendered a Judgment of Forfeiture on April 21, 2001. Although Jones’ copy of

the Notice of Pending Forfeiture is not dated, he had thirty days from receipt of the

notice to file a claim in this matter. As no extensions are allowed, his November 30,

2004 filing is untimely. Accordingly, this assignment of error is without merit.

2

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The costs of this matter are assessed to the defendant-appellant, James Henry Jones.

AFFIRMED.

3