Opinion
No. 1181 C.D. 2011
03-05-2012
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellant v. $6,118.00 U.S. Currency
BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE McGINLEY
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (Commonwealth) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County (trial court) that granted Brian Brookins (Brookins) post-trial and supplemental post-trial motions.
The trial court vacated its January 3, 2011, order which granted the Commonwealth's petition for forfeiture in the amount of $6,118.00 and dismissed the Commonwealth's petition for forfeiture.
On January 7, 2011, Brookins sought post-trial relief and asserted:
1. On November 15, 2010, this Court . . . held a hearing to consider the Petition for Forfeiture filed . . . on behalf of the Commonwealth [p]ursuant to 42 Pa. C.S.A. Section 6801.
2. By its Order of January 3, 2011, the Court [g]ranted the Commonwealth's Petition for Forfeiture.
. . . .
4. Brian Brookins . . . seeks the following relief:
A. A reversal of the Court's decision to grant the Commonwealth's Petition for Forfeiture seeking instead a judgment in favor of the Claimant [Brookins] based upon the following grounds:
i. The Commonwealth failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that there was a nexus between the small amount of marijuana found in the vehicle, the charge against Defendant [Brookins] having been dismissed by the District Justice, and the $6,118.00 in the United States Currency which was in possession of the Claimant [Brookins]; (emphasis added).
ii. The Commonwealth is not entitled to a rebuttable presumption that the currency found on the Claimant's [Brookins] person was connected to the small amount of marijuana which was found in the console of the vehicle in which the Claimant [Brookins] was a passenger because the marijuana was not found in close proximity to the currency.
iii. Claimant [Brookins] produced evidence at the hearing which rebutted any presumption that there was a nexus between the marijuana and the United States Currency because:
a. He established that he was the actual owner of the money by his own statement and because it was found on his person;
b. He obtained it in a lawful manner, and he established same by providing to the Court his United States Form 1040 Tax Return along with a cancelled check stub which proved that the currency was a [sic] income tax refund paid to Claimant [Brookins] by the United States Treasury; (emphasis added).
c. The income tax refund check had been obtained and negotiated by Claimant [Brookins] at HSBC bank in
Rochester, New York, the place of Claimant's residence, within 2-3 days prior to his arrest. (emphasis added).Motion for Post Trial Relief Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1, January 7, 2011, Paragraphs 1, 2, and 4 at 1-4; Certified Record (C.R.) at 19.
d. He did not unlawfully use or possess the money in that there was no proof that he was engaged in drug trafficking, such as scales, customer lists or similar devices. (emphasis added).
e. The Commonwealth presented no evidence that Claimant [Brookins] had engaged in drug trafficking transactions, and the amount of marijuana recovered in the console of the vehicle in which Claimant [Brookins] was riding, and which he did not own, was insufficient to raise an inference that it was intended for resale.
. . . .
WHEREFORE, Claimant [Brookins], . . . prays that this Honorable Court reconsider the evidence presented in this case and dismiss the Commonwealth's Petition for Forfeiture, directing that the Commonwealth return the funds seized, $6,118.00 in United States Currency, to Claimant [Brookins]. (emphasis added).
On January 13, 2011, Brookins filed a supplemental motion for post-trial relief and asserted:
5. The Honorable Court erred in admitting the evidence of an "ion scan", allegedly performed by Commonwealth's witness, Sergeant Frank Yost of the Pennsylvania National Guard because: (emphasis added).
. . . .
B. The results of the "ion scan" lack relevance to this action because Sgt. Yost testified that he had "scanned" currency only in Pennsylvania banks, whereas the uncontroverted testimony and physical evidence
established that the currency in question was obtained from a bank in New York state. (emphasis added).Supplemental Motion for Post Trial Relief Pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. No. 227.1, January 13, 2011, Paragraph 5 at 2; C.R. at 19.
After review of Brookins' post-trial motion, supplemental post-trial motion and brief in support of, the trial court granted Brookins' motion and vacated its January 3, 2011, order granting forfeiture. The trial court concluded that "in the case at bar, viewing the totality of the circumstances, we find that Mr. Brookins has shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he owned the money, he lawfully acquired it from his 2009 income tax refund and it was not unlawfully used or possessed by him." Statement Pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(a) (Opinion) of the Trial Court, August 26, 2011, at 11.
The Commonwealth did not file an answer or brief challenging Brookins' post-trial and supplemental post-trial motions.
Before this Court, the Commonwealth contends that the trial court erred when it determined that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden that the money seized from Brookins was directly connected to illegal drug-trafficking. This issue was raised before the trial court and ably disposed of in the opinion of the Honorable Margherita Patti Worthington. Therefore, this Court shall affirm on the basis of that opinion. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. $6,118.00 U.S. Currency, (No. 8306 Civil 2010, 1181 CD 2011), filed August 26, 2011.
In an appeal from a forfeiture proceeding, this Court's review is limited to a determination of whether the trial court's findings are supported by competent evidence and whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Strand v. Chester Police Department, 687 A.2d 872 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). --------
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 5th day of March, 2012, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County in the above-caption matter is affirmed.
/s/_________
BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge