PAUL E. ALLEN, 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.
Paul Allen appeals a trial court order denying his motion for return of property seized during his 1993 arrest. Allen's criminal convictions were affirmed in 1996, and while certain items were properly forfeited, he claims other personal property that was neither contraband nor evidence was never returned. The appellate court reverses and remands for the trial court to actually address the merits of the six-year-old motion.
The appellate court reversed the denial order and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the trial court's brief explanation stating that the record contains no evidence of a prior court order granting return of property does not resolve the merits of a motion that has been pending for six years.
[1] A motion for return of property seized during an arrest may be considered on its merits even if the record does not contain a prior court order granting its return.
[2] A trial court's order denying a motion for return of property must provide a substantive basis for the denial, rather than merely stating the absence of a prior favorable…
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 record contains no evidence of any court order granting return of property to Defendant and a prior civil ease forfeits property from the Defendant to the State.”
The trial court's stated reason for denying the motion, which the appellate court found inadequate because it does not address the merits of whether non-forfeited property should be returned.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAllen was arrested on June 30, 1993, and numerous items of personal property were seized from his residence. He was convicted of various offenses and …
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 Property cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Chief Judge.
Paul E. Allen appeals an order denying his motion for return of property. He claims that he was arrested on June 30, 1993, and that numerous items of personal property were seized from his residence at that time. Thereafter he was tried and convicted of various offenses and sentenced to forty years’ imprisonment. His convictions and sentences were affirmed in 1996. See Allen v. State, 688 So. 2d 918 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
In conjunction with this prosecution, Combined Law Enforcement Against Narcotics (CLEAN) filed a forfeiture action against Mr. Allen and obtained a judgment for two pickup trucks and a car phone. Mr. Allen does not contest this forfeiture judgment. Instead, he is arguing that numerous other items of personal property were taken from him that were not contraband or evidence and that they were never returned to him.
Our record appears to be incomplete, but it does contain an “amended” motion to return property filed by Mr. Allen’s attorney in February 1998 and court minutes from 1998 and 2000 indicating that hearings were held on this motion at which “no action” was taken. Mr. Allen’s attorney apparently withdrew from the case before this matter was resolved. In July 2001, Mr. Allen prepared and submitted an order on return of property that lists all of the claimed property. It was his belief that a circuit court judge had ruled in his favor, but nothing in the record confirms that belief. The circuit court did not enter this order. In January 2004, Mr. Allen wrote the circuit court in an effort to have his order entered. Apparently in response, on March 4, 2004, the trial court entered an order denying the motion for return of property. The only explanation provided for the denial of the motion is the statement that the “record contains no evidence of any court order granting return of property to Defendant and a prior civil ease forfeits property from the Defendant to the State.” Although that recitation appears correct, it does not resolve the merits of the motion that has been pending for six years.
We express no opinion on the merits of this motion but reverse this order and remand for further proceedings. The trial court may find helpful Judge Wallace’s recent explanation of the procedures applicable to such a motion. See Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.