Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet

3 Citing cases

  1. Hanson v. 1950 Desoto, License Plate 749079

    A13-0561 (Minn. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2013)

    On October 24, 2011, the city moved for summary judgment on the vehicle forfeiture under the "designated offense" provision of Minn. Stat. § 169A.63 (2012). One week later, we decided Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, VIN No. 1GNFC16017J255427, Texas License Plate No. 578VYH, 805 N.W.2d 906 (Minn. App. 2011), concluding that for vehicle forfeitures under Minn. Stat. § 169A.63, subds. 6, 9(f), it is not sufficient that the driving behavior constituted the commission of a designated offense.

  2. Patino v. Chevrolet

    821 N.W.2d 810 (Minn. 2012)   Cited 9 times
    Holding that after a timely demand for a judicial determination of a forfeiture, “[u]nder subdivision 9(f), when a person charged with a designated offense appears in court and is not convicted of the designated offense, ‘the court shall order the property returned to the person legally entitled to it’ ”

    This contention misstates the court of appeals' decision in two ways. First, the court of appeals' conclusion clearly does not apply to subdivision 8. Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, 805 N.W.2d 906, 910 (Minn.App.2011) (“We conclude that because appellant here clearly requested a judicial determination, the provisions of subdivision 9(f) govern this matter.”). Moreover, the court did not conclude that a conviction is required before a vehicle can be forfeited; rather, the court concluded that forfeiture is prohibited in a judicial forfeiture proceeding when the forfeiture is based on commission of an underlying designated offense and the party charged with that offense meets the criteria set forth in subdivision 9(f). Id. at 909–10.

  3. Woodruff v. 2008 Mercedes

    831 N.W.2d 9 (Minn. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 6 times

    SeeMinn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 9(e). Tollefson was not a party to this agreement. In October 2011, the Minnesota Court of Appeals issued Patino v. One 2007 Chevrolet, 805 N.W.2d 906 (Minn.App.2011), aff'd,821 N.W.2d 810 (Minn.2012), holding that when the person charged with a designated offense as defined by Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 1(e), is not convicted of the designated offense, the district court is required under Minn.Stat. § 169A.63, subd. 9(f), to return the vehicle to the person legally entitled to it.