EDWARD A. MOORE, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Edward Moore appealed the denial of postconviction motions challenging his guilty plea to insurance fraud and seeking return of seized property. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the plea withdrawal motion but reversed and remanded the property return motion for further proceedings to determine whether Moore validly forfeited his traveler's checks.
The court affirmed the denial of Moore's motion to withdraw his plea because the plea colloquy does not reflect any mention of promised money return. The court reversed and remanded the property return motion because there is no clear indication Moore validly forfeited the traveler's checks, and the trial court should conduct further proceedings to determine the basis for retaining the property.
[1] A trial court's denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea will be affirmed when the plea colloquy does not mention any inducements for the plea other than the length o…
[2] A court possesses inherent power to order the return of property seized from a criminal defendant when it is no longer needed as evidence.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“A court has the inherent power to direct the return of property seized from a criminal defendant, if it is no longer needed as evidence against him.”
Establishes the court's inherent authority to order return of seized property even after conviction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMoore pleaded guilty to insurance fraud and was ordered to pay $1,150 in restitution and public defender fees. Moore claims he was led to believe this…
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 Motion To Withdraw Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Edward Moore appeals the denial of two motions for postconviction relief. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
Both appeals revolve around the same grievance. Moore, who entered a plea of guilty to insurance fraud, was ordered to pay $1,150 in restitution and public defender fees. He states that he was led to believe this sum would be deducted from approximately $3,000 in traveler’s checks seized in connection with his arrest, the remainder to be returned to him. This was not done and the money allegedly remains in the possession of the arresting police agency.
In case number 88-2746 Moore attacks the voluntariness of his plea to the criminal charges. Several separate grounds for relief are asserted, the most significant of which concerns counsel’s alleged promise that Moore would get some of his money back.
The trial court, denying Moore’s motion to withdraw his plea, attached the plea colloquy, wherein no mention was made by Moore of any inducements for the plea other than the length of sentence. Based on this we affirm the trial court’s order. Case number 88-2815 stems from the denial of Moore’s motion to return property, directed toward the excess money. A court has the inherent power to direct the return of property seized from a criminal defendant, if it is no longer needed as evidence against him. Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1972); Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Except where property taken pursuant to a warrant is concerned, in which instance section 933.14, Florida Statutes (1987), governs, there are no established methods for exercising this inherent power. Estevez.
Nonetheless, the power continues to exist after the underlying criminal case has terminated. Sawyer v. Gable, 400 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). A separate civil suit is not required. In the event the court refuses to act, the proper remedy is a petition for writ of mandamus. Estevez.
In the present case we are not persuaded that resort to a writ of mandamus is called for.
The trial court’s order refers to previous correspondence between Moore and the court wherein Moore is alleged to have “forfeited” all of the money in question.
We find no indication in the record before us that Moore intended to do this. Rather than our treating the matter now before us as a petition for writ of mandamus, we remand for the trial court to con duct further proceedings to determine whether any basis exists for the retention of Moore’s traveler’s checks, or, alternatively, whether Moore has omitted from his motion pertinent facts that would call for a different result. Only if this matter cannot be resolved within a reasonable amount of time will we be disposed to entertain a formal petition for writ of mandamus.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and LEHAN and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)…money or a motor vehicle taken under circumstances constituting larceny, see Section 812.061, Florida Statutes (1989), the statutes do not provide a procedure for return of property seized from a criminal defendant without a warrant. Moore v. State, 533 So. 2d 924, 925 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). It is, however, well established that a court has inherent power to direct the return of property seized from a criminal defendant if that property is no longer needed as evidence against him. Id.; Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 S…
-
Kern v. State, 706 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…5 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Benedetti v. State, 584 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); Moore v. State, 533 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988); Sawyer v. Gable, 400 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). This power continues to exist even after the underlying criminal case has been terminated. Coon; Moore; Sawyer. The court below found that there was sufficient evidence adduced…
-
McCANTS v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ution on appeal. The motion is facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court’s inherent authority to effectuate the return of such property, thus precluding summary denial. E.g., Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Moore v. State, 533 So. 2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded. ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Garmire v. Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1972)
- Sawyer v. Honorable Ellen Morphonios Gable, 400 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)