DANIEL STEVENS, 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.
Daniel Stevens appealed the summary denial of his motion to recover a computer seized from his residence during a search. The district court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court failed to attach adequate records to support its conclusion that the motion was untimely.
The court reversed and remanded because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record from the correct criminal case (01-CF-002028) to conclusively establish that the motion was untimely. The circuit court must either attach adequate records demonstrating untimeliness on remand or entertain the motion on its merits.
[1] A trial court retains inherent authority over property seized in connection with a criminal proceeding, even after the prosecution has terminated, to direct its return to…
[2] Title to unclaimed property lawfully seized in connection with a criminal proceeding vests in the law enforcement agency sixty days after the proceeding is concluded, pur…
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“A trial court's jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes inherent authority over property seized or obtained in connection with the proceeding and thus held in custodia legis.”
Establishes the foundational principle that trial courts have authority over seized property in criminal cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn February 26, 2001, Hillsborough County sheriff's deputies seized a Packard Bell computer from Stevens' residence pursuant to his wife's signed cons…
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 Custodia Legis cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Daniel Stevens appeals the summary denial of his motion seeking the return of property allegedly seized from his residence. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On July 5, 2005, in circuit court ease 01-CF-002023, Stevens filed a motion seeking the return of a Packard Bell computer, model A-950-TWR, serial #P089033110, that Hillsborough County sheriffs deputies seized when searching his residence pursuant to his wife’s signed consent. The circuit court summarily denied Stevens’ motion as untimely.
A trial court’s jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes inherent authority over property seized or obtained in connection with the proceeding and thus held in custodia legis. White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); see also Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187, 1191-92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). This authority continues beyond the termination of the prosecution, thus enabling the court to direct the return of the property to its rightful owner. Id. However, section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that title to unclaimed evidence or personal property that was lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation and that is in the custody of the court or clerk as part of a criminal proceeding, or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency, vests permanently in the law enforcement agency sixty days after the proceeding is concluded.
When denying Stevens’ motion, the circuit court attached to its order the August 17, 2001, judgment and sentence and April 10, 2003, amended sentence in circuit court case 01-CF-005068, the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office waivers/affidavits, and the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office property receipt. The court determined that on February 26, 2001, the computer was seized during the deputies’ search of Stevens’ home. But the court concluded that Stevens’ motion was untimely under section 705.105 because his criminal proceeding ended on April 10, 2003, when his original sentence was amended.
A review of the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office property receipt reflects that, indeed, the computer was seized as evidence on February 26, 2001. Therefore, the circuit court correctly concluded that the computer was seized as evidence. However, the August 17, 2001, judgment and sentence and April 10, 2003, amended sentence entered in circuit court case 01-CF-005068 and referenced in the circuit court’s order to support its finding that Stevens’ motion was untimely do not refute Stevens’ claim that the computer was seized in circuit court case 01-CF-002028. The court failed to attach any records pertaining to the latter case. Therefore, the attachments to the order do not conclusively refute Stevens’ claim.
If, on remand, the circuit court again summarily denies Stevens’ motion, it must attach portions of the record demonstrating that the motion was untimely. Otherwise, the court must entertain the motion on its merits. See Cloud v. State, 801 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); Hughes v. State, 768 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
STRINGER and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…es, rules, and forms to facilitate the process of returning personal property to defendants in criminal cases once the cases have been resolved. As things stand, the courts resolve these issues using their “inherent authority.” See Stevens v. State, 929 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). This process is slow, expensive, and somewhat haphazard. Mr. Almeda is a typical petitioner. At the time he reached a negotiated plea, he did not arrange for return of items seized from his home during a lawful search. For…1 / 2
-
Wicky v. Crisanto C. Oxonian, 24 So. 3d 571 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…e parties’ interests. Finally, Ms. Wicky contends that the circuit civil court does not have jurisdiction over this matter. Evidence ob [*575] tained in connection with a criminal proceeding is held in custodia legis by the court. Stevens v. State, 929 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). As Ms. Wicky correctly points out, the criminal court has inherent jurisdiction over such evidence and civil courts should not be permitted to intrude on pending criminal matters. See Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 So. 2d 2, 4-5…
-
Harkless v. State, 975 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ad it been taken under an execution. “A trial court’s jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes inherent au [*439] thority over property seized or obtained in connection with the proceeding and thus held in custodia legis.” Stevens v. State, 929 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citing White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187, 1191-92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)). “This authority continues beyond the termination of the prosecution, thus enabling t…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)
- 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)