IRA FERGUSON, 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.
Ira Ferguson appeals the trial court's order denying his motion for return of property seized during his arrest. The appellate court reverses and remands because the defendant was acting pro se, was not notified of or present at the hearing on the return of property motion, and there is no transcript of the hearing.
The order denying the motion for return of property is reversed and the case is remanded for an evidentiary hearing because Ferguson, acting pro se, was not notified of or present at the hearing, the lack of transcript should not penalize him, and it is possible the State may no longer have a need to retain the evidence after nearly four years.
[1] A defendant is entitled to the return of seized property unless the state demonstrates that the property is needed for evidentiary value in an ongoing investigation or po…
[2] A trial court order denying a motion for return of property must be supported by a record of the proceedings, including a transcript or stipulated statement, especially w…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“the defendant should not be penalized for the lack of a transcript”
Establishes that a pro se defendant who was not notified of or present at the hearing cannot be disadvantaged by the absence of a hearing transcript
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFerguson was arrested in June 2000 and personal property was seized. In April 2001, the trial court ordered the State to return the property unless it…
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 Adequate Record On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Ira Ferguson, appeals from an order denying his Motion for Return of Property. We reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
The defendant, Ira Ferguson, filed a motion seeking the return of personal property that was seized from him when he was arrested in June 2000. In April 2001, the trial court ordered the State to return the property unless it could demonstrate that the property needs to “be retained for evidentiary value.”
In August 2002, the defendant filed a pro se Motion for Contempt and Sanctions asserting that the State had conceded that the defendant was entitled to the return of the property, but that the property had not been returned. The record does not reflect that the trial court ruled on this motion. However, on September 11, 2002, the trial court entered an order denying the defendant’s Motion for Return of Property finding that the seized property “has considerable evidentiary value in the ongoing investigation and potential prosecution of 2 robberies and a related murder case....” Although, the September 11th order indicates that the matter was heard by the trial court, there is no transcript of the hearing or anything else in the record that indicates what transpired during the hearing.
In response, the State argues that this Court should either affirm the order under review based on the defendant’s failure to provide an adequate record, or remand for an evidentiary hearing to address whether the property needs to be retained by the State for the future prosecution of any other case against the defendant.
The record indicates that when the trial court entered its September 11th order, the defendant was acting pro se. Further, the record does not indicate that the defendant was notified of the hearing or that he was present at the hearing. Therefore, the defendant should not be penalized for the lack of a transcript. Moreover, the parties cannot provide a stipulated statement as provided for in Rule 9.180(f)(4), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure,1 because the defendant was not present at the hearing. Finally, because it has been almost two years since the evidentiary hearing took place and almost four years since the property has been seized, it is quite possible that the State may no longer have a need to retain the evidence. Therefore, under the circumstances, we reverse the order under review and remand for an evidentiary hearing.
Reversed and remanded.
. Rule 9.180(f)(4) provides:
Stipulated Record. The parties may stipulate to the contents of the record. In such a case the record shall consist of the stipulated statement and the order appealed which the lower tribunal shall certify as the record on appeal.