Several meth labs were found located within a family ranch. Son who owns a portion of the ranch is arrested and prosecuted. Mother, who own the majority of the land is warned if son keeps going the entire ranch will be seized. While on bond for the first case he is arrested 5 months later after having started up two new labs on the ranch, one inside a deer stand in the bed of a pickup registered to Mom. A Chap 59 forfeiture is started. All members of the family, including the wayward son, sign off on a settlement agreement in which Mom pays $100,000 and the Chap 59 suit is dismissed. Son pleads guilty to a jury and is not happy with the result. The cases were affirmed and PDR refused. Son, through his writ writer, has filed 11.07 writs asserting double jeopardy as a result of the Chap 59 settlement. All of the cases I have seen so far were cases where the actual property was involved in the final judgment. Here the Chap 59 suit was dismissed after an owner that was not prosecuted put up the settlement funds. I believe I know how to handle this but if anyone has ideas I am all ears.

Didn't the cca preclude this kind of argument a long time ago? Fant v. State, 931 S.W.2d 299, 308-09 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996) (Texas' civil asset-forfeiture scheme did not constitute punishment and, therefore, did not implicate protections against double jeopardy in regard to subsequent prosecution for offense underlying asset forfeiture); United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 278, 287 (1996).

You might look at the SG's brief in State v.
THIRTY THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED SIXTY DOLLARS, 2005 WL 853949

Thanks for the input. We are on the same page but I feel there is an additional factor here in that the person convicted suffered no loss in the civil forfeiture, only his mother. The defendant's post-conviction writ affidavit states that his purpose of deeding his interest over to his mother after the forfeiture settlement was to show the jury how remorseful he was that he put her through all of that. Since the buy-out settlement was his mother's money, the defendant himself suffered no actual loss to which he could even justify trying to argue the double jeopardy and excessive fines theories.

Any problems with seizing entire ranch when only a portion was used. I have a similar fact pattern and the defense is up in arms about the taking of the entire ranch.

In this particular instance we reached a financial buyout settlement with the primary interest owner. However, the owner's son was hiding multiple meth labs virtually all over the ranch. One lab was located in a deer stand that was located in his mother's pickup. After his mother paid the settlement and the son was sentenced to 50 years, the son's friendly writ-writer filed an 11.07 writ asserting double jeopardy, violation of the excessive fines clause, and ineffective assistance of counsel based on unfulfilled "promises" of leniency from the jury. My answer to his writ brought up the fact that it was the mom, not the son, who lost in the seizure along with the prior decisions that the seizure was remedial instead of punative. If you want to discuss facts you are welcome to e-mail me at gary.bunyard@yahoo.com.