Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[freepatriot32]

FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

His fight continues, however, to keep the state from seizing his land.

Puckett was arrested on June 14, 2002, after an investigation into the cultivation of marijuana plants on about 10 acres of cornfield. Police also seized marijuana from a barn on the property.

Puckett’s then-74-year-old father, William Vernon Puckett, was arrested during a raid on the property on Oct. 18, 2001. He later entered a plea agreement and was sentenced to a 10-year probated sentence and a $5,000 fine.

During the three-day trial this week, the elder Puckett testified that his son had no knowledge of the marijuana-growing operation, said Dan Hurley, Ronnie Puckett’s attorney.

At the time, Ronnie Puckett was grieving the death of his wife and was not spending much time in his fields, Hurley said.

Two outstanding arrest warrants remain for individuals allegedly involved in the marijuana operation.

Johnny Actkinson, 287th District Attorney, confirmed that Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher, are wanted on marijuana possession charges.

Kathy Fancher, Bill Fancher’s wife, testified against Ronnie Puckett as part of an immunity deal.

In a June 2002 forfeiture hearing in Parmer County, Ronnie Puckett lost his 320-acre farm to the state. The property was valued at approximately $484,000. The state can move to seize property if it is used for illegal drug purposes, Hurley said.

Puckett, however, appealed the ruling to the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo and won back control of the property because the state did not make a proper filing for seizure, Hurley said.

At the state’s request, the state Supreme Court has agreed to hear the property forfeiture case, Hurley said.

Still, Hurley said, Ronnie Puckett looks forward to moving on with his life now that the threat of criminal prosecution is behind him.

‘‘He is incredibly relieved and happy,’’ Hurley said.

p.christine.smith@lubbockonline.com t 766-8754

[tacticalogic]

Interesting. As far as you know, was there ever any attempt or precedent to seize a ship over contraband carried by a passenger, or a stowaway?

[robertpaulsen]

It is so sweet!

You have to admit it's kind of funny to see state's rights/10th amendment people running to the 14th amendment to seek protection from their own state!

[vladog]

You don't 'own anything' in this country, if some government agency wants what you think is your private property.

The right of eminent domain has been used over and over again by local, state, and federal government to aquire land for what ever purpose. The drug laws/regs in this country are just more in a long process of stealing American freedoms, one freedom at a time.

[pageonetoo]

"The Founding Fathers... passed the first forfeiture law. It was limited to violations of the admiralty and customs laws..."

And the reason was because this was the means of funding the new Republic. There were taxes and levies on most everything brought into the country, AS THE ONLY MEANS OF G'UMT REVENUE!
But, since the illegal inputation of an INCOME TAX, they are not as concerned about things coming over/past our borders...
As for the asset forfeiture laws, they still had to show PROOF of an ILLEGAL ACTION, though not necessarily prosecuting a criminal offense. Habeus Corpus, Prohibition on illegal search and SEIZURE, and other writs of rights and possession, were NOT SUSPENDED, but instead, were further strengthened, to prevent abuse.

[tacticalogic]

You have to admit it's kind of funny to see state's rights/10th amendment people running to the 14th amendment to seek protection from their own state!

I'll bet the living-document liberals get quite a chuckle over so-called "conservatives" clinging desperately to that steaming pile of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the New Deal Commerce Clause.

[cajun-jack]

why did they have to "estimate" the actual amount found in the barn??? every feed mill, gin, landfill and truckstop (nearly) in the country have scales. Why didn't they just weigh it and get the exact amount.

an "estimated" amount is usually (i think) inflated and done purposely to make the drug warriors look like giants among men.

[robertpaulsen]

"even though he has been found not guilty of the criminal charge related to its original confiscation."

I say that neither you nor I know this.

How do you know that he (Puckett) wasn't charged and convicted last June with "conspiracy to grow marijuana" (or some such criminal charge)? In return for a plea bargain naming his co-conspirators (Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher), Puckett was given a suspended sentence.

Plausible? Of course. But we don't know, do we? So stop it with the "he's never been charged" wailing.

[TKDietz]

"How can it be completely separate if the justification for a forfeiture claim is suspicion of a criminal act? Or can the feds simply file a civil forfeiture case against you with no reason given?"

Look, there is a difference between civil and criminal cases. They are apples and oranges, two different things which an co-exist. For instance, in most places one can civil contempt can be used a s a means for collecting unpaid child support and ensuring future payments and there are also criminal statutes under which the state can proceed against non-paying non-custodial parent for the crime of nonsupport. These are both separate causes of action. There are actually several places in the law where one could face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit for the same underlying conduct.

The stated justification for civil forfeiture statutes may be to see that drug traffickers can't keep their ill-gotten gains, but that doesn't mean that the State actually has to prove the underlying criminal conduct. It's harder to prove something beyond reasonable doubt than it is to convince a jury to be 51% sure that the property was used or intended to be used for any one of several enumerated purposes. In fact, since it's a civil case and not a criminal case, there is no need that all twelve jurors are convinced of the state's case. All they need is a majority in civil cases in most states.

Hey, I don't like these cases either. I think it's just a way to punish one guy even more than we punish the next for the same conduct. It's an end around the stiff burden of proof required in a criminal case. It often results in people being punished twice. Not only that, it also results in quite a few innocent people losing their money or other property because they don't have the means to defend a civil lawsuit and at least in my state if not all states, public defenders are not appointed in civil cases.

These cases happen all the time. There are dozens and dozens pending in the Court in my county. Most are just for whatever cash someone might have had in their pocket when they were arrested for drugs or for vehicles in which drugs were found. Sometimes really nice vehicles are seized. Sometimes they find huge loads of cash (last month our county seized 1.1 million from one vehicle). Sometimes they just take large cash forfeitures that don't appear to be related to the case but it's all done as part of the same plea agreement. They rarely ever settle a case with us without forcing our clients to sign separate agreed orders where they agree to let the State keep whatever it was they seized.

As for the comment about the feds, obviously the feds can't file a civil action against you for no reason, and nor can the states. But I believe that federal asset fofreiture laws are similar to state laws in that foreiture is a civil action with a much lower burden of proof.

[ellery]

Actually we 10th amendment people are being Constitutionally consistent -- I've never argued against the fourteenth amendment, nor have I argued that the things under the feds' purview per the Constitution actually belong to the states.

What's funny is how you seem to sniff at the 10th amendment until a case arises that contradicts the fourth and fifth amendments -- then all of a sudden you're a states' righter. Tell me, do you consider the Constitution to be the literal framework of our Republic? Or do you think it just provides symbolic guidance?

[tacticalogic]

Since rp doesn't seem to know, exactly how do you go about proving the innocence of the property in a case like this? It sounds like you're going to have to haul into court, swear in, and question a bucket of dirt.

[ellery]

The difference is, eminent domain is allowed for in the Constitution, and requires compensation. I'll grant you that it's terribly abused...but government seizure of private property without owner conviction of wrongdoing OR compensation takes it to another level entirely. There is no provision for this in the Constitution, and in fact there are several explicit provisions against it.

[ellery]

...clinging desperately to that steaming pile of socialist sophistry we refer to in polite company as the New Deal Commerce Clause.

HEEEE!

[ellery]

How do you know that he (Puckett) wasn't charged and convicted last June with "conspiracy to grow marijuana" (or some such criminal charge)? In return for a plea bargain naming his co-conspirators (Bill Fancher and his son, Jesse Fancher), Puckett was given a suspended sentence. Plausible? Of course. But we don't know, do we? So stop it with the "he's never been charged" wailing.

Can't prove a negative, rp. It's reasonable to assume that this article would have mentioned it if there were another criminal charge involved outside the one for which he was found not guilty. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. Until then, stop impugning this man's character with off-the-wall, baseless accusations.

[ellery]

OK, thanks for the clarification. Do the authorities have to win their civil case before they seize the property?

[pageonetoo]

"I say that neither you nor I know this."

" a jury... found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana..." The article gives a current date. The article explains the situation, in depth, and makes no reference to any other PENDING criminal action.

Maybe you don't know, but the rest of us do. I can say factually (it is in the first line, if you have read it) that there is no criminal action being taken. I assume the writer would state it, if there were charges!!!
Further, a search of county records show no criminal charges pending, or any sentence appended to the man..

Again, you are stating biased opinions, without basis in fact... and certainly not worthy of honest debate! But then, I guess that is your modus operandi!!!

[ellery]

Not to mention the fact that a plea bargain involves pleading guilty to a lesser crime instead of going to court. This man went to court and was found not guilty. That's pretty strong evidence that he did not plead guilty to another crime.

RP, you keep arguing that there must be another charge not mentioned here. Can we extrapolate from your approach that you would consider it unjust if this man were fighting for ownership of his property absent another charge?

[TKDietz]

The State's seizure and subsequent forfeiture of Puckett's property arose from the discovery of marijuana interspersed with a corn crop on his property. "FARWELL – After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001."

Robert, did you even read the darned article? The author said that Ronnie Pucket was found "innocent" by a jury. That's what uneducated newspaper writers say when they mean "not guilty."

He didn't plead to anything. That's your guess, but it's a bad one because prosecutors just wouldn't do that and the court wouldn't allow it even if the prosecutor would go along. Think about it. Why would a prosecutor agree to sever charges and let the Defendant go to a jury trial on a simple possession charge while leaving open other more serious charges? They wouldn't do that because it means more work for them. They don't plead a case unless they can resolve all the issues, and courts don't tend to allow charges arising out of the same event to be handled separately because it's inefficient. Why should all the witnesses be called in for two trials?

There is no reason to believe that there is still a pending criminal case. More likley than not, the reporter was just wrong again in writing that Puckett was found "innocent" of "marijuana possession" charges. Whatever charges were filed against Puckett from this incident, they would have all been disposed of at the trial level.

By the way, the cite for the civil forfeiture case is Silver Chevrolet Pickup v. State, 99 S.W.3d 874 (Ct. App., Tex., 2003). I read the case and the marijuana was "interspersed with a corn crop on his property." "There was evidence that the marijuana was carefully cultivated, harvested, and processed in a barn on the property. Parmer County deputy sheriffs discovered the marijuana on October 18, 2001. They physically seized substantial personal property on that day, including some of the marijuana and, with the help of Puckett, burned or plowed under the remainder." Id. at 875. I'd post a link but this is coming from a members only type pay site.

Notice how the property is a party in this case. Often the state actually sues the property in rem without even suing the owner. In my state, the state can do either or both.

[TKDietz]

"OK, thanks for the clarification. Do the authorities have to win their civil case before they seize the property?"

No, they don't have to win the case before they seize the property. But they do have to win the civil case if they want to keep the property. But like I said, more often than not there are only small items of personal property or cash involved and the criminal suspects never even challange the state on these cases because they don't know how and they can't afford a lawyer. Most of the time, the people never even respond and the state wins by default.

[TKDietz]

"Since rp doesn't seem to know, exactly how do you go about proving the innocence of the property in a case like this? It sounds like you're going to have to haul into court, swear in, and question a bucket of dirt."

That's not a problem for me, I'm always questioning buckets of dirt. (often in blue uniforms) ;-)

Really it doesn't come down to whether the real property is innocent. I don't know about Texas but I'm guessing it's similar to my state where it comes down to whether the state can prove that it's more likely than not that the real property (land and anything permanently attached to it) "substantially assisted in, facilitated in any manner, or was used or intended for use in the commission of any act prohibited" by the controlled substance statutes. In my state, simple possession of a personal amount of a drug without intent to deliver is not enough to justify forfeiture of real property, although it is enough for forfeiture of personal property such as vehicles, cash and so on.

[tacticalogic]

Really it doesn't come down to whether the real property is innocent.

So, we have a law that doesn't really mean what it says? Nice.