Grady James Padgett appeals the forfeiture of his interest in real property where he grew marijuana.1 He argues that the real property should not have been subject to forfeiture because the State did not list the real property in the initial report of seizure made the same day a search warrant was executed at the property, and that the underlying search and seizure were unconstitutional. For reasons that follow, we affirm. On appeal from a civil forfeiture proceeding, we construe the evidence in a manner that supports the judgment below.2 The record in this case shows that on October 22, 2004, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at real property owned in part by Padgett. As a result, Padgett was charged with trafficking in and manufacturing marijuana.3 The same day, the Bartow County Sheriff’s Office filed a request for condemnation that listed personal property seized by the Sheriff’s Office, as well as $574.00 in U.S. currency. All of the items listed had been taken into the custody of the Sheriff’s Office. The real property was not included as an item seized in the request for condemnation.
On December 8, 2004, the State filed a complaint seeking forfeiture of both the real property and the items listed in the request for condemnation. After Padgett was found guilty of trafficking in and manufacturing marijuana in August 2006 and his motion for new trial was denied, a hearing was held on the forfeiture petition. The trial court granted the forfeiture, and Padgett appeals.
