ANTONIO HUGHLEY, $3,861.00 in U.S. CURRENCY and ONE (1) BUICK, VIN# 4V37J7E133835, Appellants-Defendants,
STATE OF INDIANA, THE CONSOLIDATED CITY OF INDIANAPOLIS/MARION COUNTY and THE INDIANAPOLIS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, Appellees-Plaintiffs
These opinions are not precedents and cannot be cited or relied upon unless used when establishing res judicata or collateral estoppel or in actions between the same party. Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure 65(D).
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT. The Honorable David Shaheed, Judge. The Honorable Shatrese Flowers, Commissioner. Cause No. 49D01-1110-MI-38687.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: STEPHEN GERALD GRAY, Indianapolis, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES: GREGORY F. ZOELLER, Attorney General of Indiana, KYLE HUNTER, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
MAY, Judge. BAILEY, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
Antonio Hughley appeals a summary judgment for the State of Indiana, the City of Indianapolis, and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (collectively, " the State" ). As Hughley's affidavit did not give rise to a genuine issue of material fact, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On August 2, 2011, police were looking for a suspect who had been seen near a house at 30th and Gladstone, where a red car was parked. The red car was registered to Hughley, who told the police he lived in the house. He consented to a search of the house for the suspect. In Hughley's house, police found cocaine in plain view. They then obtained a search warrant and found marijuana, more cocaine, and scales with cocaine residue. Hughley had $3,871.00 in his pocket.
Hughley was arrested for dealing in cocaine and the State filed a complaint for forfeiture, seeking forfeiture of the car and the cash. The State moved for summary judgment, and Hughley responded with an answer and affidavit in which he denied the State's allegations and said the cash was not the proceeds of criminal activity and was not intended to be used to violate any criminal statute. The trial court granted the State's motion as to the cash but denied it as to the car.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
When reviewing a summary judgment, our standard of review is the same as that of the trial court. Dreaded, Inc. v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267, 1269 (Ind. 2009). Considering only those facts the parties designated to the trial court, we must determine whether there is a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 1269-70. In answering these questions, we construe all factual inferences in the non-moving party's favor and resolve all doubts as to the existence of a material issue against the moving party. Id. at 1270. The moving party bears the burden of making a prima facie showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a ...