CALVIN WILSON, 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 court held that the trial court erred in failing to address a motion for return of $108,375, requiring further proceedings, but correctly denied a motion for $2164 based on prior judgment and 'buy money'.
[1] A court may deny a motion for return of property when a portion of the confiscated funds constitutes "buy money" belonging to law enforcement.
[2] A court may deny a motion for return of property when a final default judgment has been entered against the movant for the confiscated funds.
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 intelligenceCalvin Wilson filed two motions for the return of confiscated property: one for $2164 and another for $108,375. The trial court summarily denied both …
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
WALLACE, Judge.
Calvin Wilson appeals a final order denying his two motions for the return of property. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On August 9, 2005, Wilson filed a motion for return of property requesting the return of $2164 that was confiscated from him at the time of his arrest. On September 15, 2005, Wilson filed a second motion for return of property requesting the return of an additional $108,375. After obtaining a response from the State, the postconviction court entered an order summarily denying both of Wilson’s motions.
The postconviction court ruled that Wilson was not entitled to the return of the $2164 because $100 of that amount was “buy money” owned by the Tampa Police Department and a final default judgment for the $2064 balance had previously been entered against Wilson in favor of the Tampa Police Department. Based on the postconviction court’s findings and the entry of the final default judgment against Wilson, we affirm the summary denial of Wilson’s first motion.
In its order, the postconviction court failed to address the additional $108,375 that was the subject of Wilson’s second motion. The postconviction court failed to make any findings concerning whether the substantially larger amount had been the subject of forfeiture proceedings under the-provisions of sections 932.701 to 932.707, Florida Statutes (2003), the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, or if it had vested in the Tampa Police Department at the conclusion of the proceeding against Wilson in accordance with section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2003). Accordingly, we reverse the order with respect to Wilson’s second motion, and we remand for the postconviction court to consider that motion. On remand, the postconviction court must either attach portions of the record to its order demonstrating that Wilson is not entitled to relief or conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hughes v. State, 768 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded.
CASANUEVA and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…SILBERMAN, Judge. In this appeal after remand following a prior appeal, Calvin Wilson challenges the summary denial of his motion for return of property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. In Wilson v. State, 924 So. 2d 969 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), this court considered Wilson’s appeal of an order denying his two motions for return of property. We affirmed the denial of his motion seeking return of $2164, but we reversed the denial of his motion seeking return of $108,375.…
-
Shuler v. State, 984 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)…dings under the Act or otherwise established probable cause that a nexus existed between the seized money and the chapter 898 offenses for which Mr. Shuler was arrested. See Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Wilson v. State, 924 So. 2d 969, 970 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). If the currency was not seized as contraband but for some other evidentiary purpose — a highly improbable scenario in the typical drug transaction-then the postconviction court must determine whether the statutory limitation…
Authorities Cited
- Odis Ray Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Gomez v. State, 768 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Kelsey Hughes v. State, 768 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)