CHRISTOPHER HARRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Harris's appeal from denial of his motion for return of property seized at arrest is dismissed as untimely filed, though the motion was properly denied on the merits because title to the property vested in the law enforcement agency under Florida statute.
An appeal from an order denying a motion for return of property seized at arrest is dismissed as untimely when the appellant fails to place the notice of appeal in the hands of prison officials for mailing within the required timeframe.
[1] Title to unclaimed evidence or personal property lawfully seized and in the custody of law enforcement vests permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after concl…
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 intelligenceChristopher Harris was arrested on December 12, 1992, and property was taken from him at that time. He subsequently filed a motion for return of the p…
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
Christopher Harris appeals from an order denying his motion for return of property taken from him at the time of his arrest on December 12, 1992. While we dismiss the instant appeal as untimely filed, we note that the motion was properly denied on the merits. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.420(a)(2) (“A document filed by a pro se inmate confined in an institution is timely filed if the inmate places the document in the hands of an institution official for mail*675ing on or before the last day for filing.”); Davis v. State, 867 So.2d 539, 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (dismissing appeal where appellant “failed to demonstrate that the notice of appeal was placed into the hands of prison officials for mailing within 30 days of the date of the final order sought to be reviewed.”); Harris v. State, 667 So.2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) (concluding the matter in which the items claimed concededly were seized); see also § 705.105, Fla. Stat. (2009) (providing that title to unclaimed evidence or personal property lawfully seized and in the custody of the clerk or law enforcement agency vests permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after conclusion of the proceeding); Poux v. State, 985 So.2d 1191, 1192 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (stating that the court could “discern no reason not to apply [to a motion for return of property] section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes, mandating a four year civil statute of limitations for actions to recover personal property”).
Dismissed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Franz Herman Rigg v. State, 190 So. 3d 656 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See § 705.105, Fla. Stat. (2015); Harris v. State, 30 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010). As the appellant’s motion in the circuit court and this appeal are successive, the appellant is cautioned that further successive and non-meritorious filings may subject him to sanctions. See § 944.279, Fla. Stat. (2015), and S…
-
Bryant Williams v. State, 36 So. 3d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Harris v. State, 30 So. 3d 674 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010).…
Authorities Cited
- Davis v. State, 867 So. 2d 539 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004)
- Poux v. State, 985 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)
- The Gables I Townhomes, Inc v. Guar. Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 667 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Harris v. State, 667 So. 2d 1006 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)