People v. Chabeear

California Court of Appeal Dec 26, 1984 No. A025303Published

Before: Kline

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court denied the defendant due process by ordering the distribution of seized funds to a third-party robbery victim without providing the defendant notice or an opportunity to be heard. The case is remanded for a formal hearing to determine the proper ownership and distribution of the funds.

Issues

Whether the trial court's order distributing seized funds to a third party without a hearing violated the defendant's due process rights.
What is the appropriate remedy when a court improperly distributes seized property to a third party without due process?

Disposition. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“the court held that it was a denial of due process to award money seized from a defendant to a third-party claimant without giving the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard.”

“Presumptively the money taken from defendant belonged to him. Conviction of a crime does not work a forfeiture of the person’s property.”

“The appropriate remedy, we believe, is to remand the matter to the trial court for hearing on disposition of the funds.”

Opinion

KLINE, P. J.

Jordan Chabeear entered a negotiated plea of guilty in municipal court to violation of Health and Safety Code section 11359. On certification to superior court, the court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. The court also ordered that monies seized from him be distributed to a third party. On appeal, he contends that the court’s order denied him due process of law.

On August 17, 1983, an Oakland police officer purchased marijuana from appellant at 720 Willow Street in Oakland. On August 26, 1983, pursuant to warrant, officers searched the Willow Street residence and arrested appellant as he attempted to flee out the front door. During the search $214 was found under a bedroom mattress. In addition, $138 was taken from appellant when he was arrested on charges of violation of Health and Safety Code section 11360.

The terms of appellant’s negotiated plea were that three additional felony counts against him (two violations of Health & Saf. Code, § 11360 and one violation of Pen. Code, § 211) would be dismissed, that he would receive

[155]

the mitigated term of 16 months in prison, and that the $214 and the $138 taken from him would be returned if there were no other claimant.

The probation report stated that on October 17, 1983, the victim of the dismissed robbery count claimed that $280 was taken from him during the robbery. The probation officer therefore recommended that the victim be reimbursed from the money seized by the police.

At the sentence hearing, defense counsel submitted an order to return the seized funds to appellant. After pronouncing sentence, the court stated its intention to order that $280 be given to the robbery victim and that the difference, $72, be returned to appellant. The court asked defense counsel to modify his proposed order accordingly. Thereafter the court issued an order directing that the $214 and the $138 seized from appellant be released to the probation department for payment of restitution and that $72 be released to appellant.

Relying on

People

People v. Chabeear

AI Brief

KLINE, P. J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief