Opinion
No. 1 CA-CV 14-0379
02-26-2015
In the Matter of: TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10,000.00) IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY. STATE OF ARIZONA, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. LEOPOLD SALEEM, Claimant/Appellee.
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix By Peter S. Spaw Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant Leopold Saleem, Ft. Grant Claimant/Appellee
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
No. CV2012-018339
The Honorable Robert H. Oberbillig, Judge
REVERSED AND REMANDED
COUNSEL Maricopa County Attorney's Office, Phoenix
By Peter S. Spaw
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellant
Leopold Saleem, Ft. Grant
Claimant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Judge Diane M. Johnsen delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Kent E. Cattani and Judge Lawrence F. Winthrop joined. JOHNSEN, Judge:
¶1 The State appeals the superior court's grant of summary judgment in a civil forfeiture proceeding. We reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
¶2 After a drug dog alerted to currency in Leopold Saleem's bag at the airport, the State seized the currency for forfeiture. Saleem filed a claim of interest and in due course moved for summary judgment, arguing there was insufficient evidence to link the money to the sale or possession of drugs. See In re Twenty-Four Thousand Dollars ($24,000) in U.S. Currency, 217 Ariz. 199, 201, ¶ 7 (App. 2007). In response, the State argued that the drug-dog alert and Saleem's drug-related criminal history established a link sufficient to withstand summary judgment. The court granted Saleem's motion and the State appealed. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes sections 12-120.21(A)(1), -2101(A)(1) (2015).
Absent material revisions after the relevant date, we cite a statute's current version.
¶3 Saleem failed to file an answering brief after receiving notice of the appeal and notice of the filing deadline. We hold this failure constitutes a confession of reversible error. See Bugh v. Bugh, 125 Ariz. 190, 191 (App. 1980) ("Where debatable issues are raised, the failure of an appellee to file an answering brief constitutes a confession of reversible error."). Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings.