TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN NO. 03-19-00310-CV The State of Texas, Appellant v. $71,404.00 U.S. Currency, Appellee FROM THE 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY NO. 18-1254-C395, THE HONORABLE RICK J. KENNON, JUDGE PRESIDING OPINION The State of Texas appeals from the district court’s order granting a motion for new trial in a civil-asset-forfeiture case. In its sole issue on appeal, the State asserts that the district court erred in granting the motion for new trial because, in the State’s view, the district court no longer had jurisdiction over the property that had been forfeited. We will affirm the district court’s order. BACKGROUND On September 26, 2018, during a traffic stop on a vehicle that belonged to Vicente Alonso-Carbajal, the State seized $71,404.00, believing it to be contraband that was subject to forfeiture under Chapter 59 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 59.01–.14. The State subsequently charged Alonso-Carbajal with the offense of money laundering. Alonso-Carbajal retained counsel to represent him in the criminal case. Although Alonso-Carbajal had not hired this counsel to represent him in the civil-forfeiture proceedings, this counsel filed an answer and general denial in response to the State’s notice of seizure and intended forfeiture, as was this counsel’s usual practice in cases involving the seizure of his client’s property. On February 13, 2019, the criminal case was scheduled for a plea hearing. The parties anticipated that at this hearing, Alonso-Carbajal would plead guilty to the money- laundering charges. Before the hearing began, Bridget Chapman, an attorney for the District Attorney’s Office, presented to counsel a “Stipulated Forfeiture and Agreed Final Judgment,” which ordered the forfeiture of the $71,404.00. Counsel signed the judgment, as did Chapman and the district court. Alonso-Carbajal was not present in the courtroom when counsel signed the judgment, and it is undisputed that counsel never discussed the judgment with his client and that Alonso-Carbajal had no knowledge that counsel had agreed to the forfeiture. When the plea hearing began, the district court admonished Alonso-Carbajal of the possible immigration consequences of his guilty plea. At that point, Alonso-Carbajal announced that he no longer wanted to plead guilty and instead wanted to discuss his case with an immigration attorney. The criminal case was reset for March 26, 2019. On February 26, 2019, pursuant to the terms of the Agreed Final Judgment, Ronnie Simek, the Financial Administrator for the District Attorney’s Office, instructed the Williamson County Treasurer to withdraw the forfeited funds from the District Attorney’s interest-bearing “TexPool Account” and deposit the funds into the District Attorney’s “Chapter 59 Account” for disbursement to local law-enforcement agencies, in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 59. See id. art. 59.06. On February 27, Simek disbursed the funds to 2 the Williamson County District Clerk, the Williamson County Constable Precinct 3, the Williamson County Sheriff, and the Williamson County District Attorney, in accordance with local agreements relating to the disbursement of forfeited funds. 1 See id. Meanwhile, Alonso-Carbajal had hired ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals