ALBA L. ROMERO-SAAVEDRA, 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.
Appellant's petition for return of seized currency was properly denied because it was filed eight months after the criminal proceeding concluded, exceeding the 60-day deadline under Florida Statute § 705.105(1).
A petition for return of seized currency must be filed within 60 days after conclusion of the criminal proceeding, or title vests permanently in the law enforcement agency.
[1] Title to property lawfully seized in a criminal proceeding vests permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after conclusion of the proceeding if no petition for r…
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 intelligenceAppellant was arrested for drug trafficking and had $1,462 seized. She pled guilty on January 9, 1997, and filed her petition for return of the curren…
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 Criminal Procedure cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant was arrested and ultimately charged by the state with trafficking in illegal drugs. At the time of her arrest, she was in possession of $1,462 in currency which was seized as the evidence by law enforcement officials. The appellant pled guilty to the charge on January 9, 1997. On August 13, 1997, eight months after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding, the appellant filed her petition for the return of her currency. The trial court’s denial of this petition prompted this appeal.
We affirm the lower court’s denial of the petition because it was untimely filed pursuant to section 705.105(1), Florida Stat utes (1997). That statute specifically provides that:
Title to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of the proceeding.
Thus, where the appellant failed to file her petition within sixty days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding, title to the currency properly vested with the law enforcement agency.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sarmiento v. State, 816 So. 2d 826 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)…of his property seized during his arrest where, as here, the petition was not timely filed within sixty (60) days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding as is required by section 705.105(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); see Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) and Crutchley v. Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, 688 So. 2d 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); and where civil forfeiture proceedings against the property were pending at the time of the filing of the petition. See City of Miami v. Barclay…
-
Watkins v. State, 230 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…rty permanently vests in the law enforcement agency, i.e., at least 60 days prior to the “conclusion of the proceeding.” Thus, a motion filed more than sixty days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding is untimely. Romero-Saavedra v. State, 735 So. 2d 1290, 1290-1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999). In this case, the State argues that the proceedings in Watkins’s. criminal case were concluded on April 13, 2015, when the State dismissed’ the criminal charges against Watkins; therefore, the State argues, Watkins’s…
-
Holmes v. State, 997 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…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.…