 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ables v. State9/6/2002
is case is not a "controlled substance" as that term is defined under the Alabama Uniform Controlled Substances Act, § 20-2-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975. Rather, the State's authority to condemn the vehicle at issue in this case arose under §§ 28-4-286 through -290, Ala. Code 1975, which govern the condemnation of vehicles used to transport intoxicating beverages in dry counties.
On appeal, Junior argues only that the forfeiture of his vehicle under the facts of this case constitutes an excessive fine that is violative of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
"In United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 118 S. Ct. 2028, 141 L. Ed. 2d 314 (1998), the Supreme Court established a standard for determining whether a forfeiture constitutes an excessive fine for purposes of the Eighth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that 'a punitive forfeiture violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense.' 524 U.S. at 334, 118 S. Ct. at 2036. The Supreme Court explained:
"'In applying this standard, the district courts in the first instance, and the courts of appeals, reviewing the proportionality determination de novo, must compare the amount of the forfeiture to the gravity of the defendant's offense. If the amount of the forfeiture is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the defendant's offense, it is unconstitutional.' "524 U.S. at 336-37, 118 S. Ct. 2028.
The Supreme Court stated that, in determining excessiveness, (1) 'judgments about the appropriate punishment for an offense belong in the first instance to the legislature,' and (2) 'any judicial determination regarding the gravity of a particular criminal offense will be inherently imprecise.' 524 U.S. at 336, 118 S. Ct. 2028." Ex parte Dorough, 773 So. 2d 1001, 1004 (Ala. 2000).
In Ex parte Dorough, supra, the record did not indicate the value of the appellant's seized vehicle or the nature of the charge against the appellant. Therefore, the trial court did not address the issue whether the forfeiture of the appellant's vehicle was "grossly disproportional to the gravity" of the appellant's offense. Ex parte Dorough, 773 So. 2d at 1004. See also United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 at 337 (1998). Our supreme court remanded the case to this court to remand to the trial court for the trial court to make a determination of the value of the appellant's vehicle. Ex parte Dorough, 773 So. 2d at 1005.
Similarly, in this case, the record contains no evidence regarding the value of Junior's vehicle. Therefore, this court is unable to apply the analysis set forth in United States v. Bajakajian, supra, and discussed in Ex parte Dorough, supra. We remand this action to the trial court for a determination of the value of Junior's vehicle and whether the forfeiture of that vehicle constitutes an excessive fine. See Ex parte Dorough, supra.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
Yates, P.J., and Pittman, J., concur.
|