Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas
MEMORANDUM OPINION
No. 04-15-00689-CV
TEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY-TWO DOLLARS AND NINETY-SIX
CENTS ($10,562.96) UNITED STATES CURRENCY AND CERTAIN PROPERTY,
Appellant
v.
THE STATE OF TEXAS,
Appellee
From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2014-CI-14694
Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker, Judge Presiding
Opinion by: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice
Marialyn Barnard, Justice
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
Delivered and Filed: September 28, 2016
AFFIRMED
Lonnie Ray Hines, owner of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Sixty-Two Dollars and Ninety-
Six Cents ($10,562.96) in United States Currency (the “Currency”), appeals the trial court’s
judgment awarding the Currency to the State of Texas, as contraband subject to forfeiture under
Chapter 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. arts. 59.01-.14 (West
2006 & Supp. 2016). We overrule appellant’s issues on appeal, and affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
04-15-00689-CV
ANALYSIS
The State filed an Original Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture of the Currency and
Other Certain Property against appellant on September 16, 2014. The State alleged that the
Currency and personal property were seized pursuant to a lawful search warrant and were subject
to forfeiture as contraband that was: (1) used or intended to be used in the commission of the felony
drug offense of delivering, manufacturing and/or possessing a controlled substance, to-wit: cocaine
and marijuana, and/or the felony offense of money laundering; (2) proceeds gained from
commission of such felony offenses; and/or (3) acquired with such proceeds. See TEX. CODE CRIM.
PROC. ANN. art. 59.01(2)(B)(i),(iv), (C), (D) (West Supp. 2016). A report of seizure listing the
seized currency and other property was attached to the State’s forfeiture petition in accordance
with article 59.04(b). Id. art. 59.04(b) (West Supp. 2016). The record reflects that appellant filed
an Answer and General Denial in response to the State’s Notice of Seizure and Intended Forfeiture
on September 29, 2014. Irma Hines intervened in the forfeiture suit as owner of the personal
property seized. One year later, an Agreed Final Judgment was entered awarding the Currency to
the Bexar County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, an agency of the State of Texas, and
awarding the seized personal property to Irma Hines. The agreed judgment was approved by
counsel for the State and by the attorney representing appellant and intervenor Irma Hines. The
judgment recites, “[a]ll Parties agree to waive any and all rights to appeal this Agreed Final
Judgment.” Appellant thereafter filed a pro se notice of appeal.
Proceeding pro se on appeal, appellant argues that the State violated his right to due process
by seizing the Currency (i) without providing proper notice and (ii) without establishing a
substantial connection between the Currency and the criminal activity. See TEX. CONST. art. I,
§ 19. As pointed out by the State, appellant did not raise either of these due process complaints in
the trial court, and therefore did not preserve them for review. See TEX. R. APP. P. 33.1(a) (as a
-2-
04-15-00689-CV
prerequisite to presenting a complaint for appellate review, the record must show the complaint
was made to the trial court); In re L.M.I., 119 S.W.3d 707, 711 (Tex. 2003) (due process argument
must be raised in the trial court to be preserved for appellate review).
Even if preserved, appellant’s arguments would fail on their merits. As his first issue,
appellant asserts he did not have the chance to answer because notice was never sent to him by the
government. However, as noted above, the record contains appellant’s Answer and General Denial
filed in response to the State’s forfeiture petition, which indicates appellant had notice of the
State’s seizure and intent to forfeit the Currency. As his second issue, appellant asserts there is
“no direct evidence” that the Currency was derived from or intended for use in the manufacture,
delivery, sale, or possession of a controlled substance. The record contains the seizing officer’s
sworn statement that he executed the search warrant at appellant’s residence and found appellant
in the kitchen “attempting to swallow Crack Cocaine;” seized 7.0 grams of Crack Cocaine, a digital
scale, and a loaded handgun in the kitchen; seized 90.0 grams of marijuana in a filing cabinet in
the dining room; seized another handgun and $9,917.96 cash in a safe in appellant’s bedroom; and
seized $645.00 cash from appellant’s pocket. The officer further averred that appellant is
unemployed, and stated that appellant receives currency and other valuable items in exchange for
narcotics. The officer’s affidavit provides sufficient evidence to support the forfeiture of the
Currency. See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 59.05(b) (West 2006) (State’s burden in
forfeiture suit is preponderance of the evidence).
Based on the foregoing reasons, we affirm the trial court’s judgment. 1
Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
1
Appellant filed a “Motion to Expand the Record” with copies of an unsigned 2011 federal tax return and an “IRS
Tax Return Transcript” for the years ending December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2013. None of these documents
appear in the clerk’s record and there is no indication they were ever filed in the trial court. Our review on appeal is
restricted to the contents of the appellate record which consists of the documents filed in the trial court and the
transcript of any hearings held in the trial court. TEX. R. APP. P. 34.1.
-3-