EARL RICHARD WEST, 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.
Earl Richard West appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to return a 14kt gold chain and gold panda coin medallion seized as evidence upon his arrest. The court reversed, holding that the postconviction court erred in denying the motion based solely on the sheriff's attorney's representations without conducting an evidentiary hearing.
The postconviction court erred in denying the motion based solely on the attorney's factual representations. When a facially sufficient motion for return of property is made, alleging it is the movant's personal property, not fruit of criminal activity, and not being held as evidence, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property is in the custody of the sheriff's office.
[1] A motion for the return of seized property is facially sufficient if it identifies the property, alleges it is the movant's personal property, and states it is not the fr…
[2] If a motion for the return of seized property is facially sufficient, the court must hold an evidentiary hearing to determine custody and return of the property.
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 facially sufficient motion for return of property must specifically identify the property and allege that it is the movant's personal property, that it is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that it is not being held as evidence.”
Establishes the legal standard for what constitutes a facially sufficient motion for return of property.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWest was arrested in June 2005 and a 14kt gold chain and gold panda coin medallion were seized as evidence. In September 2006, the property was transf…
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 Motion For Return Of Seized Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Earl Richard West challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion to return seized property. Because the postconviction court erred in relying solely on the representations of the attorney for the sheriffs office in denying the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
West filed a motion in case number CRC06-09903CFANO seeking the return of a 14kt gold chain and a gold panda coin medallion seized as evidence by the sheriffs department upon his arrival at the Pinellas County Jail in June 2005. He alleged that the items are his personal property, they are not the fruit of criminal activity, and they were seized as evidence “concerning unrelated charges in 2005.” He was later charged with grand theft of the items in CFC06-09903CFANO. He claimed that he was never officially notified of the resolution of that case and only recently learned that the case had been nolle prossed in January 2007.
The Pinellas County Sheriffs Office responded that it was not in possession of the property. An associate general counsel explained that the property was seized from West when he was arrested in 2005. In September 2006, the property was transferred to the clerk of court, and West was found guilty of attempted armed robbery and sentenced to forty years in prison. In February 2007, the circuit court granted the State’s motion in case no. CRC05-11404CFANO to return the property to its rightful owner and to substitute a photograph of the property in evidence. The trial court then denied West’s motion, stating that “[t]he Pinellas County Sheriffs Office has responded that it is not in possession of the property in question.”
A facially sufficient motion for return of property must specifically identify the property and allege that it is the mov-ant’s personal property, that it is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that it is not being held as evidence. Justice v. State, 944 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). If the allegations are deemed sufficient, the court is obliged to provide an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the property is in the custody of the sheriffs office and should be returned to the movant. Id.
The postconviction court erred in basing its denial of the motion on the factual representations of an attorney for the sheriffs department. See Justice, 944 So.2d at 540 (“ ‘Representations by an attorney for one of the parties regarding the facts ... do not constitute evidence.’ ” (quoting Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep’t of Revenue, 837 So.2d 574, 576 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003))). We therefore reverse and remand for the postconviction court to reconsider the motion.
Reversed and remanded.
WALLACE and LaROSE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. State, 174 So. 3d 439 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…lly describe the property at issue; 2) allege that the property is the personal property of the movant; 3) allege that the property was not the fruit of criminal activity; and 4) allege that the property is not being held as evidence. West v. State, 35 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). As we noted in our prior opinion, Sanchez’s motion was facially sufficient. If the motion is facially sufficient, the court “may order the State to respond” by “refuting the defendant’s argument that the property should be…
-
Arel v. State, 160 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…facially sufficient motion for return of property must specifically identify the property and allege that it is the movant’s personal property, that it is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that it is not being held as evidence.” West v. State, 35 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (citation omitted). “If the court dismisses the motion as facially insufficient, it [*106] shall identify the deficiencies and grant [the defendant] leave to amend within a reasonable time.” Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264,…
-
Robertus F. Ooms v. State, 138 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion for return of property because the trial court erred by failing to attach portions of the record that conclusively refuted her claim); West v. State, 35 So. 3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion to return seized property because “[t]he postconviction court erred in basing its denial of the motion on the factual representations of an attorney for th…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eight Hundred, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't OF Revenue, 837 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)
- Blackwell v. State, 944 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)