JOSEPH WILLIAMS, 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.
Joseph Williams, serving a robbery sentence, sought return of personal property and money seized at arrest. The trial court ordered return of most items but transferred seized cash to the clerk of court without affording Williams notice and opportunity to be heard, violating due process principles established in Benedetti v. State.
The trial court violated Williams's due process rights. Under Benedetti v. State, the court cannot forfeit money to the State in these circumstances without providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard. The order must be reversed and remanded for the trial court to either return the money to Williams or provide him with proper notice and opportunity to respond to any other lawful transfer.
[1] A trial court may treat a defendant's "writ of replevin complaint" filed under a criminal case as a motion to recover property seized in connection with that case.
[2] A court cannot forfeit a defendant's seized money to the state without providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
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“the court cannot forfeit money to the State under these circumstances without providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard”
Establishes the due process requirement violated by the trial court's transfer of seized funds
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliams pleaded guilty to robbery offenses and is serving three concurrent twenty-five-year sentences. Police seized a wallet, watch, shoes, and $100…
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 Writ Of Replevin cases and more on FLexlaw
Joseph Williams is serving three concurrent twenty-five-year sentences for robbery. After he pleaded to these offenses, he filed a “writ of replevin complaint” to obtain a wallet, a watch, some shoes, and $100.64 that had been seized by the St. Petersburg Police Department at the time of his arrest. Mr. Williams filed this pleading under his criminal case and did not initiate a separate proceeding. The trial court properly treated his “writ” as a motion to recover property. See Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (stating that a defendant is not required to file a separate suit for replevin or conversion when seeking to recover property seized in connection with his or her case). The trial court ordered a response, and the police department admitted that it had the property and was willing to return it. The police department, however, pointed out that Mr. Williams owed $1599 in restitution, a $475 fine, and additional costs. The trial court ordered the police department to return all of the property to Mr. Williams, except for the money. Without giving Mr. Williams an opportunity to respond, the trial court ordered the police department to transfer the money to the Sixth Judicial Circuit Clerk of Court to assist in satisfying the above-referenced obligations.
Mr. Williams argues that the trial court violated his rights by ordering his money transferred to someone other than himself when the only pending motion was his request that the money be returned to him. He relies on Benedetti v. State, 584 So.2d 203, 204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991), which holds that the court cannot forfeit money to the State under these circumstances *143without providing the defendant with notice and an opportunity to be heard. We agree that Benedetti is controlling. Accordingly, we reverse the order and remand for further proceedings in which the trial court may either order the police department to return the money to Mr. Williams or provide him with notice and an opportunity to respond to any other lawful transfer that the court may seek to make of this money. We express no opinion on the court’s authority to compel the police department to transfer funds to the clerk of court under these circumstances.
Reversed and remanded.
DAVIS and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. State, 143 So. 3d 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)…y the motion and attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the claim or it should hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. See Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The present case is similar to Williams v. State, 35 So. 3d 142, 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010), where police officers seized $100.64, in addition to other property, when they arrested the appellant. After the criminal case had concluded, the appellant filed a motion to recover the property. Id. In response, the police…
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- State v. Thomas, 584 So. 2d 203 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)