This opinion will be unpublished and may not be cited except as provided by Minn.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 Unpublished Opinion FOLEY, Judge (Hon.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.