594]
Cite as 334 Ark. 592 (1998)
[334
store. They then observed Mr. Jarrett and Mr. Knapp return to the store and go inside.
Armed with a search warrant, Drug Task Force officers approached the store, arrested Randy Corbit, and seized a number of items including $1,810.00 found in Mr. Corbit's pocket, $100.00 of which was the marked "buy money." Lois Martin, the owner of the store, testified that Randy Corbit kept the store's money in his pocket to protect it from robbers. She testified that Randy Corbit told her that $1,500.00 of the cash in his pocket belonged to the store. She also said she knew that the store was short money on the day of the seizure, thus suggesting that money in Randy Corbit's pocket belonged to the store.
The Drug Task Force also seized a number of firearms from a trailer located behind the store as well as the 1987 GMC truck parked outside the store. Norman Corbit testified that the truck belonged to him, rather than to his son, and that he had loaned it to Randy Corbit. He also stated that any use of the truck to transport any controlled substance was done without his permission.
In addition to arguing that the truck was not subject to forfeiture, a posthearing brief filed by Norman Corbit and Randy Corbit contended that $1710.00 of the $1810.00 seized was not subject to forfeiture because it belonged to Lois Martin. Ms. Martin is not a party to this appeal. The Corbits also argued that the truck was not subject to forfeiture.
[2] The Trial Court ordered the $1710.00 to be forfeited. It found that the guns and other items were subject to forfeiture as substitute assets in the place of the truck. Although the forfeiture statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-505 (Repl. 1997), does not specifically require a conviction as a predicate for forfeiture of items used in drug transactions, the Trial Court ordered the State to restrain the substitute assets, and "in the event the defendant is convicted," the assets would be ordered forfeited. It is that contingent aspect of the order that robs it of finality and requires dismissal of the appeal. The order meets none of the finality criteria stated in Ark. R. App. P.—Civ. 2(a). Nor has there been any
