NELSON MONSERRATE, 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 reversed the circuit court's summary denial of a motion for return of personal property because the court failed to attach record portions demonstrating the property was lawfully seized or held as evidence, as required by section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes.
When summarily denying a motion for return of property under the sixty-day time limitation of section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes, the circuit court must attach portions of the record showing the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence.
[1] When summarily denying a motion for return of property under the sixty-day time limitation of section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes, the circuit court must attach portions…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNelson Monserrate filed a pro se motion for return of personal property that was denied by the circuit court, which found the property had been seized…
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 Statutory Time Limits cases and more on FLexlaw
Nelson Monserrate appeals the denial of his pro se motion for return of personal property. The circuit court summarily denied the motion, finding that under section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2007), the property had been seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or was held as evidence by a law enforcement agency and that title to the property vested in that agency when Monserrate did not seek timely return of the property within sixty days after the proceedings against him were concluded.
When summarily denying a motion for return of property pursuant to the sixty-day time limitation of the statute, the circuit court must attach those portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence. White v. State, 926 So.2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Burden v. State, 890 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). In this instance, the circuit court failed to attach any documents supporting its findings. Therefore, we reverse the order of denial and remand for the circuit court to *1293attach portions of the record demonstrating that the property had been seized pursuant to an investigation and was in the custody of the court clerk or had been seized and was being held as evidence by the law enforcement agency involved. Otherwise, the court must entertain the motion on its merits.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and LaROSE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. State, 63 So. 3d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)…o 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 remand. See Monserrate v. State, 25 So. 3d 1292 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). If the lower court again summarily denies Davis’ motion, it must attach portions of the record demonstrating the currency was seized and held as evidence by the law enforcement agency involved or that it was seized pursuant to…
-
Adams v. State, 273 So. 3d 195 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)