State of Tennessee v. Joseph Michael Harden
Docket: E2010-02487-CCA-R3-CD
Court: Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee; December 26, 2011; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Joseph Michael Harden appeals the Sullivan County Criminal Court's order that granted the forfeiture of his automobile, following his guilty pleas to aggravated robbery and conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery. The forfeiture proceedings were initiated under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 40-33-101 through -111. Harden contends that the trial court abused its discretion by ordering the forfeiture, claiming that the delay of seventeen months in commencing the proceedings violated his due process rights. In response, the State argues that Harden's appeal should be dismissed on the grounds that the forfeiture order is not appealable under Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(b) and relevant statutes. Additionally, the State asserts that Harden waived his claims due to an inadequate record on appeal and that he failed to file a claim for the seized property, which is a statutory requirement to contest the forfeiture. The court notes that while it has jurisdiction over final judgments in criminal cases, Harden does not have an appeal as of right in this instance. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. In State v. Phillips, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals addressed the procedural issues surrounding appeals in criminal cases. The court clarified that while it has jurisdiction over the case and the constitutional issues raised, the defendant, Harden, had not properly appealed under the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure. Specifically, only certain types of judgments and orders allow for an appeal as of right under Rule 3(b), which does not include appeals from orders granting forfeiture of a conveyance. The court emphasized that Harden's appeal was limited to the final order of forfeiture, which is not covered by Rule 3(b). Consequently, the appeal was dismissed due to lack of proper jurisdiction. The court noted that although the state legislature may have considered some form of appeal for forfeiture orders, such an appeal is not permitted under the existing rules, leaving the procedural question of how forfeiture appeals are handled unresolved.