MARQUISE T. HAMMOND, 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.
Marquise Hammond appeals the denial of his motion to return property seized by the State. The court affirms the denial because the written motion was untimely, but allows Hammond to file a new motion within 60 days based on an oral motion allegedly made by his counsel at sentencing that was not previously raised on appeal.
The written motion to return property was untimely and properly denied; however, because Hammond raised a colorable claim to the property, he is permitted to file a new facially sufficient motion to return property within 60 days from issuance of the mandate, which shall not be deemed successive.
[1] A claim for the return of property must be preserved in the lower court to be considered on appeal.
[2] An appellate court may affirm a denial of a motion to return property if the motion appears untimely on its face.
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“in order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue "must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved"”
Establishes the preservation requirement for appellate issues
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHammond filed a motion to return property pursuant to Florida Statute 705.105(1). The transcript of his plea and sentencing hearing on April 14, 2005,…
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 Timeliness Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
Marquise Hammond appeals the denial of his motion to return property filed pursuant to section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2005). We affirm because the motion appears to be untimely based on the contents of the motion as filed in the postcon-viction court. See Harkless v. State, 975 So.2d 437, 440 & n. 3 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
*253However, for the first time in this appeal, Hammond asserts that the transcript of his plea and sentencing hearing held on April 14, 2005, reflects that his counsel made a timely oral motion for the return of the property that was not used against him in this case. The prosecutor responded to this motion by asserting that the property was being held as evidence for possible future criminal prosecutions; however, it does not appear from our record that any such further prosecutions materialized. This sequence of events raises two questions: (1) whether a motion to return property must be in writing and (2) what effect, if any, the State’s response to a motion to return property asserting that the property may be evidence for a separate criminal prosecution that may be brought in the future has on the timing and timeliness of a subsequently filed motion to return that property. •
Because Hammond did not argue below that he was entitled to the return of his property based on his counsel’s alleged oral motion, this basis for relief is not preserved for our review in this appeal. See, e.g., Tillman v. State, 471 So.2d 32, 35 (Fla.1985) (holding that in order to preserve an issue for appellate review, the issue “must be presented to the lower court and the specific legal argument or ground to be argued on appeal or review must be part of that presentation if it is to be considered preserved”); see also Conner v. State, 987 So.2d 130, 132 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); I.R.C. v. State, 968 So.2d 583, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). However, because Hammond has raised at least a col-orable claim to the property in this appeal, we affirm without prejudice to him raising this issue in a facially sufficient motion to return property filed within sixty days from the issuance of the mandate in this appeal. Such a motion shall not be deemed successive.
Affirmed.
WHATLEY and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 1985)
- Chapman v. State, 968 So. 2d 583 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Darion Conner v. State, 987 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Harkless v. State, 975 So. 2d 437 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)