TYRONE BURDEN, 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.
The appellate court held that the trial court erred in summarily denying a motion for return of property without attaching record portions showing lawful seizure or evidentiary status.
Tyrone Burden moved for the return of money confiscated following his arrest. The trial court denied the motion as untimely under section 705.105, Flo…
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
[*567] WALLACE, Judge.
Tyrone Burden appeals the summary denial of his motion for return of property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Burden’s motion requests the return of money allegedly confiscated and withheld following his arrest. The trial court treated Burden’s motion as a motion for return of property pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (2004). Section 705.105 provides that title to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized vests permanently in the law enforcement agency if not claimed within sixty days after the conclusion of the proceeding. Attaching the judgment and sentencing record, the trial court summarily dismissed Burden’s motion as untimely.
When summarily denying a motion for return of property pursuant to the sixty-day time bar, the trial court must attach those portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence. See Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKinnon v. State, 752 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court made no finding as to the relevance of the money to Burden’s charges or that the State had an interest in Burden’s property. See Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).
On remand, the trial court must attach those portions of the record indicating that the cash was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that it was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in the custody of the court clerk. Otherwise, the money must be returned to Burden. See Cloud, 801 So. 2d at 964; Stevenson, 688 So. 2d at 963.
Reversed and remanded.
FULMER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…n summarily denying a motion for return of property as untimely under this provision, 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. Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKinnon v. State, 752 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). If, on remand, the circuit court again summarily denies White’s motion, it must attach portions of the r…
-
Poux v. State, 985 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t’s failure to attach portions of the record indicating that the police seized the property pursuant to a lawful investigation or held the property as evidence. We have considered White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), but deem them inapposite. In those cases, the issues involved application of section 705.105, Florida Statutes, providing for transfer of seized property to law enforcem…
-
Davis v. State, 63 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…ly denied Davis’ motion without attaching any portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence. This was error. See White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKinnon v. State, 752 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The lower court’s failure to attach portions of the record supporting its findings requires reversal and…
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
- Odis Ray Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Charley Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)
- Cherry Shelton-Mills v. Mills, 752 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- McKINNON v. State, 752 So. 2d 134 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)