$31 v. State Texas

Per Curiam In this forfeiture case, the trial court granted the claimant's motion for summary judgment for, among other things,
the State's failure to request a hearing within 30 days of claimant's answer, as formerly required by Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat.
Ann. art. 4476-15, § 5.07(a), Act of May 28, 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 429, 1973 Tex. Gen. Laws 1132, 1161, as amended, Act
of May 25, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., ch. 227, § 13, 1985 Tex. Gen. Laws 1102, 1124. The court of appeals reversed the judgment
and remanded the cause for a trial on the merits, stating that "because section 5.07(a) was directory and not mandatory, the
State may not have a summary judgment entered against it for failing to request or obtain a time for a forfeiture hearing
within 30 days after...[the claimant's] answer." 828 S.W.2d 112, 114-15. In State v. $435,000, ___ S.W.2d ___ (Tex. 1992)
(per curiam), we held that former section 5.07(a) was mandatory and that the claimant "was entitled to a hearing within thirty
days and a prompt trial setting, and would have been entitled to mandamus relief had the trial court refused either; but ...[the
claimant] was not entitled to dismissal of the State's action for the trial court's failure to consider the case expeditiously."
Id. at ___. Petitioner's application for writ of error is denied. Opinion Delivered: October 14, 1992