Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Farid Ali Datoo v. State
Citation: Not availableDocket: 13-18-00192-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; December 11, 2019; Texas; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the civil forfeiture case involving Farid Ali Datoo, $49,518.00 was seized during a search of Fred’s Game Room in Beaumont, Texas, where Datoo was later convicted of operating a gambling establishment, a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court ordered the forfeiture of the seized money to the Jefferson County District Attorney’s Office as gambling proceeds under Article 18.18(a) of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. Datoo appealed, arguing he was entitled to notice and a contested hearing as per Article 18.18(b)(f) since he was not convicted of the specific offenses listed under Article 18.18(a). The State conceded Datoo's entitlement to a hearing but claimed he waived the error by not objecting in a timely manner. Conversely, the State sought either to affirm the forfeiture or to reverse and remand the case for a hearing. The court ruled in favor of Datoo, reversing and remanding the case, noting that the trial court issued the forfeiture order without a hearing or notice, which violated due process principles. The court emphasized that Datoo had not been afforded the opportunity to raise his objections in the trial court, allowing for the possibility of appellate review despite the lack of a motion for a new trial. The trial court's denial of Datoo's opportunity to object during the error allows him to present his complaint for the first time on appeal. A precedent from Rickels v. State supports this, where a defendant was similarly allowed to appeal due to a lack of opportunity to object to probation modifications. Datoo argues for the return of $6,300 in seized currency based on a previous case, but the court finds that case unpersuasive due to its brevity and lack of detailed reasoning. Instead, the State's request for remand under Article 18.18(b)(f) is deemed appropriate. The trial court's automatic forfeiture order violated Datoo's due process rights, as he was not provided notice or the chance to contest the forfeiture. While the State retains its interest in the property, Datoo must now prove by a preponderance of evidence that the seized money is not gambling proceeds. The conclusion is to reverse the prior judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.