IVAN DAVILA AND TOMAS MATOS, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
PER CURIAM.
As the State properly concedes, the trial court erred in denying the appellants’ motions for return of property. After the State voluntarily terminated the prosecutions of the appellants herein by announcing that it would bring “no action”, the appellants were released and their cases were closed. Thereafter, the appellants properly moved to have their property returned, which motions were denied by the trial court, contrary to the provisions of Section 790.08(3), Florida Statutes (1993).
“While we understand and may share the lower court’s reluctance to do so, the mandatory terms of Section 790.08(3), Florida Statutes” require that the motions filed by the appellants herein be granted. See Cameiro v. State, 464 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Berkman v. State, 666 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)…dy. Because the seized firearms are neither the subject of any charges pending against appellant nor necessary evidence for the charges currently pending, Section 790.08(3) of the Florida Statutes mandates their return to appellant. Davila v. State, 655 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cameiro v. State, 464 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985). REVERSED.…
Authorities Cited
- Carneiro v. State, 464 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)