MARCUS ANTHONY HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Marcus Anthony Holmes appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for return of personal property seized by police. The appellate court affirmed the denial but without prejudice, allowing Holmes to refile a facially sufficient motion that properly alleges the property was not fruit of criminal activity or evidence.
The trial court properly denied Holmes' motion as facially insufficient because Holmes failed to allege specifically that the property was not fruit of criminal activity or being held for evidentiary purposes. However, the appellate court affirmed without prejudice, allowing Holmes to file a properly formatted, facially sufficient motion in the future.
[1] A motion for the return of personal property must allege specifically that the property is not the fruit of criminal activity or being held for future evidentiary purpose…
[2] A trial court may summarily deny a motion for the return of property if it is facially insufficient.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Holmes failed to allege specifically that the property was not the fruit of criminal activity or was not being held for some future evidentiary purpose.”
Establishes the legal requirement for a facially sufficient motion for return of property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHolmes submitted a letter (rather than a formal motion) to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and his assistant public defender requesting return of speci…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facially Sufficient Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Marcus Anthony Holmes appeals a trial court order summarily denying his motion for the return of personal property allegedly in state custody. We affirm the denial without prejudice to Holmes to file a facially sufficient motion.
The trial court’s reason for the denial of Holmes’ motion was that the motion was “insufficient to support the relief prayed.” In a letter addressed to the Clerk of the Circuit Court and an assistant public defender, Holmes asks the assistant public defender to file a motion for the return of personal property allegedly confiscated by police. Holmes then lists specific items of property that were seized from him that he claims did not establish “any merit as to the innocence or guilt of [his] case [sic]” or were not used as evidence against him during his trial. The letter, rather than a formal motion, was filed, treated as a motion by the trial court, and subsequently denied as insufficient.
We affirm the trial court’s finding that the motion was facially insufficient because Holmes failed to allege specifically that the property was not the fruit of criminal activity or was not being held for some future evidentiary purpose. See Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
If Holmes subsequently files a facially sufficient motion, the trial court may either hold an evidentiary hearing or summarily deny the motion. See id. at 782-83. If the court again summarily denies the motion, it must attach portions of the record that refute Holmes’ contention that the property should be returned. See id. at 782; see also White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (“[W]hen summarily denying a motion for return of property as untimely under [section 705.101(1) of the Florida Statutes], the court is obliged to attach portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence.”); Gonzalez v. State, 786 So. 2d 680, 681 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); cf. Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (finding untimely defendant’s petition to return currency seized as evidence).
Accordingly, we affirm without prejudice for Holmes to file a facially sufficient motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miguel v. State, 209 So. 3d 66 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…t is facially sufficient, the trial court shall either conduct an evi-dentiary hearing or summarily deny the motion by an order that attaches those portions of the record which conclusively establish Miguel is entitled to no relief. Holmes v. State, 997 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Reversed and remanded with directions. Before WELLS, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ. . See Arel v. State, 160 So. 3d 104, 105-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that "[a] facially sufficien…
Authorities Cited
- Deatrick S. Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- V.L. Walker Co., Inc. v. Pugh, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Alba L. Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)
- Enid Smellie v. Windsor Ins. Co., 786 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Gonzalez v. State, 786 So. 2d 680 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)