GUY MICHAEL CALAVENZO, PETITIONER,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
The court granted a belated appeal and reversed the trial court's summary denial of a motion for return of seized property, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine ownership and whether items should be returned.
A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion for return of property seized in connection with arrest without an evidentiary hearing to determine ownership and whether items are still needed as evidence.
[1] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing rather than summarily deny a motion for return of seized property when factual disputes exist regarding ownership, neces…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCalavenzo sought return of property seized in connection with his arrest. The trial court summarily denied his motion for return of property. The stat…
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 Return Of Seized Property cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We grant Petitioner’s request for belated appeal of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for return of property seized in connection with his arrest, as the state does not dispute his affidavit that a copy of the order was never sent to him until after he filed his mandamus petition seeking to compel the trial court to rule.
According to the state’s response, some of the items he requested were needed as evidence in the event of trial; however, the state noted there were questions as to whether Petitioner owned certain items and whether certain items were still in the sheriffs custody. Treating this appeal as if it were the denial of a motion for postconviction relief, see Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), cause dismissed, 621 So. 2d 1065 (Fla.1993); Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991), we conclude that the trial court erred in summarily denying the motion and remand for an evidentiary hearing to determine ownership issues, see Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), to determine whether any of the items owned by Petitioner are no longer needed and should be returned, see McCants v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996), and to determine whether the sheriffs office is no longer in possession of items owned by Petitioner, as to which Petitioner may have grounds to bring a separate civil action, see id. at 661; Butler, 613 So. 2d at 1350; Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569, 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).
FARMER, PARIENTE and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…r v. Universal Supply Co., 452 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), reversed on other grounds, 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1985)). Other courts, however, treat these orders as final post-judgment orders, much like post-conviction appeals. See Calavenzo v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Under either view, we have jurisdiction in these proceedings. Thus we may proceed to resolve the issues presented on the merits. Validity Of The Investigative Subpoena Althou…
-
Kern v. State, 706 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…iversal Supply Co., Inc., 452 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984), reversed on other grounds, 479 So. 2d 109 (Fla.1985). Other courts have treated these orders as final post-judgment orders, processed like post-conviction appeals. See Calavenzo v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). On the merits, the state argues that the trial court correctly released the evidence to the state because it is contraband. See §§ 932.701—932.707, Fla. Stat. (1995). Section 9…
-
Raffone v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep't, 731 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…the trial court for an evidentiary hearing to determine ownership of the items requested, status and location of the seized property, and a valid basis, if any, for permitting retention of the property by the seizing agency. See Calavenzo v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Wright v. State, 570 So. 2d 1135 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings. KLEIN, TAYLOR and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Sanford Paul Butler v. State, 613 So. 2d 1348 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- McCANTS v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)