This opinion will be unpublished and

                  may not be cited except as provided by
               Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1994).

                          State of Minnesota
                            in Court of Appeals
                              C8-95-1742

     State of Minnesota,
     Respondent,
     vs.

Carol Ann Widmer, a/k/a

Carol Lynn Widmer,
     Appellant.
     Filed May 14, 1996
Affirmed
Foley, Judge

Kandiyohi County District Court

File No. K9-94-0442

Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant
Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101
(for Respondent)

Boyd A. Beccue, Kandiyohi County Attorney, 316 S.W. 4th Street, Willmar, MN
56201 (for Respondent)

John M. Stuart, State Public Defender, Scott Swanson, Assistant State
Public Defender, 2829 University Avenue S.E., Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN
55414 (for Appellant)

Considered and decided by Willis, Presiding Judge, Crippen, Judge, and
Foley, Judge.(*)
        [Footnote] (*)Retired judge of the Minnesota Court
        of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn.
        Const. art. VI, § 10.
                                     
                        Unpublished Opinion

FOLEY, Judge (Hon. John C. Lindstrom, District Court Trial Judge)

Carol Ann Widmer challenges her prosecution and conviction of a drug charge
following the civil forfeiture of her property, arguing that the
prosecution constitutes double jeopardy. We affirm.
                                     
                               Facts

While executing a search warrant for the residence and vehicles of
appellant Carol Ann Widmer, the Kandiyohi County Sheriff's Department
arrested Widmer and seized personal property, including $136 in cash, a .44
caliber pistol, and a 1984 Chevrolet S-10 Blazer 4 x 4.

After her release on bail, Widmer fled to South Dakota, where she was
arrested. While Widmer was incarcerated in South Dakota, Kandiyohi County
commenced a forfeiture proceeding on behalf of the state. Because the
county was unaware of Widmer's whereabouts, the county provided service by
publication for three weeks.

Widmer's husband was personally served with notice of the forfeiture
proceeding while in a South Dakota jail, and Widmer learned about the
hearing from her husband. Widmer contends that she called the court in
Kandiyohi County the morning of the hearing, but this claim is not


substantiated by the record. The district court proceeded without her, and
her property was forfeited.

Widmer was then transferred to Minnesota for trial on charges of fourth-
degree and fifth-degree possession of controlled substances. At the omnibus
hearing, Widmer argued that the property forfeiture was punishment and that
to prosecute her on criminal charges for the same incident subjected her to
double jeopardy. The trial court rejected this argument.

Widmer was tried on stipulated facts and found guilty. She was sentenced to
25 months for fourth-degree possession of a controlled substance and 19
months for fifth-degree possession of a controlled substance, the latter to
run concurrently. This appeal followed.
                                     
                              Decision

The Double Jeopardy Clause provides protection against ``multiple
punishments for the same offense.'' United States v. Halper, 490
U.S. 435, 440, 109 S. Ct. 1892, 1897 (1989). An appellate court reviews de
novo the constitutional issue of double jeopardy. United States v.
Ursery, 59 F.3d 568, 570 (6th Cir. 1995), cert. granted, 116 S.
Ct. 762 (Jan. 12 1996).

The state argues, and we agree, that the forfeiture did not constitute
punishment because Widmer did not contest it. The defendant has the burden
of proving that a civil remedy is punitive for the purposes of the double
jeopardy clause. State v. Watley, 541 N.W.2d 345, 347 (Minn. App.
1995), review denied (Minn. Feb. 27, 1996).
        
        A defendant who seeks to prove that a prior
        forfeiture ``punished'' him or her must have first
        come forward in the forfeiture proceeding and
        claimed that he or she owned the property.

Id. at 349. If the defendant is not a party to the forfeiture
proceeding, there is no risk of a determination of guilt, and jeopardy does
not attach. United States v. Torres, 28 F.3d 1463, 1465 (7th Cir.
1994).

Widmer contends that she called the courthouse in Kandiyohi County the
morning of the forfeiture proceeding to explain that she was incarcerated
in South Dakota and unable to attend. However, there is no evidence in the
record to substantiate this claim. As a result, the forfeiture proceeded by
default. Thus, because Widmer failed to become a party to the forfeiture
action and make a claim of ownership, the forfeiture did not put her at
risk and did not constitute punishment for the purposes of double jeopardy.