SANFORD PAUL BUTLER, 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.
Sanford Butler appealed a post-judgment order denying his motion for return of property seized during his arrest, arguing that property he claimed was not linked to criminal activity should be returned or he should receive damages. The circuit court granted the sheriff's petition for reconsideration, finding the property was lawfully destroyed pursuant to Florida statute. The appellate court affirmed, holding that where property has in fact been disposed of, the movant's remedy for alleged statutory non-compliance is a separate civil action, not an appeal of the property order.
The court affirmed the circuit court's order denying Butler's motion for return of property. Where the fate of seized property is not in doubt because it has been lawfully disposed of, the movant has no right to relief through an appeal of the property order. If Butler believes the sheriff failed to comply with statutory requirements in disposing of the property, his remedy is an original civil action pursuant to the rules of civil procedure, not an appeal of this order.
[1] A circuit court, having assumed jurisdiction over criminal charges, possesses inherent power to assist an owner in recovering property held in custodia legis, obviating t…
[2] When a trial court entertains a motion for return of property on its merits, mandamus is not the appropriate remedy.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When a trial court has assumed jurisdiction over criminal charges, it is thereafter vested with an inherent power to assist the true owner in the recovery of property held in custodia legis.”
Establishes the foundational equitable power of trial courts to assist in recovery of seized property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler was arrested on felony charges and personal property was seized. He filed a motion for return of property, claiming none of the items were link…
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 For Return Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Sanford Paul Butler appeals a post-judgment order of the circuit court. We affirm.
In his original “motion for return of property” Butler demanded that the Pasco County Sheriff’s Department relinquish personal possessions which Butler claimed were seized during his arrest on felony charges. According to Butler none of the items “was ... linked to any criminal activity.” Initially the circuit court entered an order commanding the sheriff to return the property.
However, the sheriff successfully petitioned for reconsideration of this order, claiming that the property was “lawfully destroyed or otherwise disposed of” in June, 1991, pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (1991). Butler argued in a motion for rehearing that the sheriff had not complied with the statute in several respects. He also sought money damages in view of the fact the original property could no longer be retrieved. Upon denial of that motion, Butler appealed.
When a trial court has assumed jurisdiction over criminal charges, it is thereafter vested with an inherent power to assist the true owner in the recovery of property held in custodia legis. Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla.1972). A separate suit for replevin or conversion is not necessary. Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA1980). Upon receipt of a facially sufficient motion the court is obligated to exercise this inherent power, and relief by mandamus may be available in the event it does not. Estevez.
Because the circuit court entertained Butler’s motion on its merits, mandamus is not appropriate in this case. In Golding v. Director of Public Safety Department of Metropolitan Dade County, 400 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA1981), it was suggested that the proper remedy for the aggrieved party is an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii). However, since the order in this case is final, we follow the lead of the First District in Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA1991), which suggests such appeals should be processed much like postconviction appeals.
In Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), the Tampa Police Department disavowed knowledge of some of the items demanded by the movant. We analogized the trial court’s order denying relief to the granting of summary judgment while disputed facts remain unresolved. Citing Coon, we suggested that an evidentiary hearing was necessary to determine such questions as “whether enumerated items were, in fact, seized, and whether a valid basis exists to permit their retention by authorities.” Brown, 613 So. 2d at 571. The present case differs from Brown in that the fate of Butler’s property is not in doubt. As noted in Brown, “[c]ertainly the court cannot make the police department return property it does not possess.” We are aware Butler asserts that the sheriff did not comply with statutory requirements in disposing of his property.
However, should this be the case, Butler’s remedy is an original action pursuant to the rules of civil procedure. Brown. The limited record before us does not permit us to express an opinion on the merits of Butler’s argument.
Affirmed.
RYDER, A.C.J., and FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Deatrick S. Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…nying a motion for the return of property under these circumstances proceeds much like a postconviction appeal pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2). Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660, 660 n. 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348, 1349 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). .We do not suggest that a motion to return property must be under oath as is required of postconviction motions. "If [the defendant’s] facts are simply untrue, the motion may be summarily denied." Stone, 630 So. 2d at 661.…
-
Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)…be summarily denied. Assuming Stone has correctly stated the facts, the court should then ascertain whether the property is still in police possession. If not, it will be necessary for Stone to initiate a separate civil action. See Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). If the property is available for return, Stone is nevertheless not entitled to it if (contrary to the motion) the property was introduced in evidence or if the state intends, and is able, to pursue forfeiture against the property…1 / 2
-
Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ns. DAVIS, J., concurs. ALTENBERND, J., concurs specially. . If the items are not still in the law enforcement agency's possession, the defendant must pursue a separate civil action against the agency that has possession of them. Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348, 1350 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). . "If the trial court finds that a motion to return property is facially sufficient, it may order the State to respond by citing applicable case law and attaching por…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Garmire v. Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1972)
- Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Estevez v. Gordon, 386 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Golding v. Dir. of the Pub. Safety Dep't, 400 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)