DUANE DAVIDSON, 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.
Davidson appeals the trial court's summary denial of his motion for return of property that was admitted as evidence in his criminal trial. The appellate court held that a facially sufficient motion for return of property invokes the criminal court's inherent authority and cannot be summarily denied without explanation, requiring remand for an evidentiary hearing.
A facially sufficient motion for return of property invokes the criminal court's inherent authority to effect the return of such property, and summary denial without explanation is improper. The case must be remanded for further proceedings to address the motion.
[1] A trial court errs in summarily denying a motion for the return of property that was admitted as evidence during a criminal trial when the motion is facially sufficient t…
[2] A facially sufficient motion for the return of property requires an evidentiary hearing rather than summary denial.
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“Because the motion was facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court's authority to effect the return of such property, the trial court erred in summarily denying it.”
Establishes the core holding that facially sufficient motions for return of property cannot be summarily denied
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavidson's property was admitted as evidence during his criminal trial. Following the trial, Davidson filed a motion seeking return of his property. T…
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.
Davidson appeals an order summarily denying his motion for return of property. In his motion appellant sought return of his property, which was admitted as evidence during his criminal trial.
The trial court summarily denied relief without any explanation for its action. Because the motion was facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court’s authority to effect the return of such property, the trial court erred in summarily denying it. See Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 So. 2d 2, 5 (Fla.1972); McCants v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding where motion for return of property was “facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court’s inherent authority to effectuate the return of such property,” summary denial was “precluded]”); Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla.App. 1st DCA 1991) (reversing unexplained summary denial of motion for return of property for evidentiary hearing because appellant’s claim was legally sufficient and “he would be deprived of due process of law if he were not afforded a prompt hearing on this matter”).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. See Raffone v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep’t, 731 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (reversing summary denying denial of motion for return of property and remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine ownership issues, status and location of seized property, and whether valid basis, if any, exists for permitting retention of the property by seizing agency); Calavenzo v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (reversing summary denial of motion for return of property and remanding for evidentiary hearing to determine ownership issues, whether any of petitioner’s property was no longer needed and should be returned, and whether the sheriffs office in possession of petitioner’s property).
JOANOS, MINER and DAVIS, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Garmire v. Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1972)
- Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Raffone v. Fort Lauderdale Police Dep't, 731 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Gutierrez v. State, 731 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- McCANTS v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Calavenzo v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Butler v. State, 695 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)