Judge: Layne H. Melzer, Case: 21-01234360, Date: 2022-08-18 Tentative Ruling

Petitioner People Of The State Of California
Motion - Other (Motion for Default Judgment of Forfeiture)

The court grants Petitioner the People of the State of California’s Motion for default and default judgment of forfeiture against Respondent Kyle Sutheimer pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 11488(a) and 11488.5(b)(1) in the amount of $29,610.

Health & Safety Code section 11488.5(a) permits potential forfeiture claimants 30 days after service has been completed (i.e., the last stage being publication of the notice of seizure) to file a claim. Subsection (b)(1) goes on to state:

“If at the end of the time set forth in subdivision (a) there is no claim on file, the court, upon motion, shall declare the property seized or subject to forfeiture pursuant to subdivisions (a) to (g), inclusive, of Section 11470 forfeited to the state. In moving for a default judgment pursuant to this subdivision, the state or local governmental entity shall be required to establish a prima facie case in support of its petition for forfeiture. There is no requirement for forfeiture thereof that a criminal conviction be obtained in an underlying or related criminal offense.”

(Health & Safety Code §11488.5(b)(1), emphasis added).

Real property or personal property worth more than $25,000 is subject to a judicial forfeiture proceeding. Under judicial forfeiture procedure, the attorney general or a district attorney may file a petition for forfeiture of property: (1) in the superior court of the county where the defendant has been charged with the underlying offense; (2) in the county where the property subject to forfeiture has been seized; or (3) if no seizure has occurred, in the county where the property is located. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(a).) This was accomplished here as the money was seized in a hotel room in Anaheim, CA.

The petition must be served on every person designated in a receipt issued for the property seized and every person who has an interest in the property. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(c), (j).) The notice must be accompanied by a claim form, with directions for filing and serving the claim. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(c).) The Judicial Council has approved a form of claim for opposing forfeiture. (See Judicial Council form MC-200.) In addition to personal service, the notice must be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure was made or the property located. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e).)

Here, The People filed a POS as part of the Motion for Default that indicates Mr. Sutheimer was personally served with the Notice of Seizure, a blank claim form, and the Petition by J. Hurley, who works for the DAs’ office on 2/2/21. The court notes that the Notice of Seizure and the Petition were signed on 12/7/21. The property was not seized until September 2021. So the Service of the required documents must have taken place on 2/1/22, and the court considers this a typo.

In addition to personal service, the notice must be published once a week for three successive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the county where the seizure was made or the property located. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.4(e).)

Here, publication was made per statute in the Orange County Reporter on 11/12/21, 11/19/21 and 11/26/21. 

The defendant or other person opposing forfeiture must file a claim within 30 days after receipt of actual notice or publication of notice of the seizure. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(a)(1).)

If no claim is filed in a timely manner, the property may be forfeited by default, on noticed motion, and the prosecution's establishment of a prima facie case in support of the petition for forfeiture. (Health and Safety Code § 11488.5(b)(1).)

The government must establish some nexus between the seized funds and a narcotics transaction (People v. $47,050 (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1319, 1323, the presence of the large amount of cash, and the apparent discrepancy between the defendant's recorded deposits and his reported income, plus a small amount of cocaine, supported the inference of illegal activity, but was insufficient to support the conclusion that the illegal activity specifically related to narcotics trafficking, or evidence linking the cash to a narcotics transaction).

Forfeiture is ordered if the prosecution meets its burden of proving that the property is subject to forfeiture. (Health & Saf. Code 11488.5(d)(2).)

Here, the People have met their burden to show a prima facie case. The People provide a Declaration of Deputy Jay Casas, a Police Officer for the OC Sherriff’s Department who joined the Special Enforcement Team in 2017. In the Declaration of Deputy Casas, he testifies that he searched the hotel room containing the money and drugs. He was the officer who read Mr. Sutheimer his Miranda rights. In response, Mr. Sutheimer waived those rights and said that he and a third-party had been staying in that hotel room for a month but all of the property in the room belonged to him and no other parties. (Casas Decl., ¶13.) Mr. Sutheimer pled guilty to the drug crimes. 

Thus, the court grants the Motion and orders that Respondent’s money at issue in this Petition is forfeited.