 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. One 2000 GMC5/27/2005
eriff is part of the State's prima facie case for forfeiture, but he cites no authority and advances no argument supporting the assumption. " 'Mere contentions, without argument or citations of authority, do not merit consideration on appeal.' " Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 353 Ill. App. 3d 197, 213 (2004), quoting McCleary v. Board of Fire & Police Commissioners, 251 Ill. App. 3d 988, 995 (1993). We further note that section 36--2(a), which governs forfeiture hearings, provides that " he State shall show at such hearing by a preponderance of the evidence, that such * vehicle * was used in the commission of an offense described in Section 36--1." 720 ILCS 5/36--2(a) (West 2002). There is no question that the State made this showing. Accordingly, we find no procedural infirmity mandating reversal of the forfeiture judgment.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Du Page County is affirmed.
Affirmed.
O'MALLEY, P.J., and GROMETER, J., concur.
|