Prince

People v. Prince

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 262·43 Cal. App. 4th 1174·51 Cal. Rptr. 2d 138·96 Daily Journal DAR 3382·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2018
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 25, 1996A067920California5,936 words

Opinion

Opinion

Stein, J.

The People appeal an order dismissing the information charging William Lawrence Prince with several offenses, including the manufacture, and possession for sale of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11379.6, 11378.) The court found that criminal prosecution was barred, under the double jeopardy clause, because in separate civil forfeiture proceedings the court had granted the government’s motion for entry of default after Prince failed to answer. Prince filed a motion to set aside the defaults, and all further proceedings in the civil forfeiture cases were stayed until the conclusion of the criminal case.

Facts

On April 19, 1993, the district attorney filed four forfeiture complaints in Mendocino County Superior Court pursuant to former Health and Safety Code section 11488.4, subdivision (a), each of which named Prince as the real party in interest. The first complaint, No. CV 66860, sought forfeiture of $2,250 and various weapons and equipment; the second, No. CV66861, of itemized stereo components; the third, No. CV66862, of assorted computer equipment; and the fourth, No. CV66863, of video equipment. Each of the complaints alleged that the property was seized…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.