 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blanks v. State9/28/1999
earing should be continued, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion by continuing the hearing twice.
Nonetheless, the trial court erred by failing to dismiss the forfeiture action since the State failed either to ensure that the hearing was re-scheduled timely or to seek another continuance after the second continuance. In interpreting the statute, we look to the intent of the legislature and give effect to that intent. The legislature intended OCGA § 16-13-49 to ensure the prompt Disposition of property subject to forfeiture under the statute. State v. Jackson, 197 Ga. App. 619, 621 (1) (399 SE2d 88) (1990). Our Supreme Court has held that the plain meaning of "must" is a command, synonymous with "shall." A mandatory construction of "must" as used in OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (5) is consistent in context with the remainder of this paragraph which provides that the 60-day requirement may be "continued for good cause." If the 60-day requirement were directory, rather than mandatory, there would be no need for a "good cause" continuance. Moreover, our construction of OCGA § 16-13-49 (o) (5) as mandatory, rather than directory, is consistent with the apparent purpose of that paragraph, which is to ensure a speedy resolution of contested forfeiture cases in the courts, as well as a speedy resolution of property rights. (Citations and footnote omitted.) State v. Henderson, 263 Ga. 508, 510-511 (436 SE2d 209) (1993).
In the present case, the forfeiture hearing was not timely re-scheduled after the second continuance. The motion to dismiss was filed nearly six weeks after the second continuance at which time a hearing still had not been scheduled. Furthermore, the hearing on the forfeiture action was not conducted until six months after the sixty-day period had expired and over four months after the second continuance.
The 60-day period is a statutorily prescribed time limit within which the State must either conduct a hearing or seek a continuance. After the second continuance, the State did neither for four months, an unreasonably long time given these clear time constraints. Today we need not decide what period of time constitutes a reasonable delay after a continuance because, unquestionably, the outer most limits of a continuance would be another 60-day period before the matter is either heard or another continuance is granted.
Here the delay after the second continuance well exceeded 60 days. The State's explanation that the lengthy delay was due to negotiations between the parties is to no avail. A continuance for good cause extends the time period, but negotiations do not. Such a lengthy delay in conducting the hearing renders meaningless the very purpose of the statute - the speedy resolution of contested forfeiture actions.
2. Our holding in Division 1 renders the remaining enumeration of error moot.
Judgment reversed. Eldridge and Barnes, JJ., concur.
|