MICHAEL JONES, 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.
Michael Jones appealed the summary denial of his motion for return of property seized by the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office during a 2006 criminal investigation. The Florida appellate court reversed and remanded because the trial court's bare summary denial lacked explanation or supporting documentation, violating proper procedural requirements.
The circuit court's bare summary denial without explanation or attachments is improper. The court must first determine facial sufficiency of the motion, and if facially sufficient, either deny the motion on the merits with supporting attachments, or hold an evidentiary hearing before granting or denying the motion.
[1] A motion for return of property is facially sufficient if it identifies the property, alleges it is the movant's personal property, and states it is not the fruit of crim…
[2] A circuit court cannot summarily deny a motion for return of property without explanation or record attachments refuting the movant's claims.
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 the property is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that the property is not being held as evidence.”
Establishes the three-part test for facial sufficiency of return of property motions
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 2006, the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office seized numerous items of Jones's personal and business property during a criminal investigation, inc…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Michael Jones appeals from the summary denial of his motion for return of property pursuant to section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2009). Because we are unable to determine the basis for the denial of the motion, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Jones alleges in his motion that the Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office seized a “plethora” of his personal and business property as part of a criminal investigation in 2006. He asserts that this property is not the fruit of any criminal activity, was not entered into evidence and is no longer needed as evidence, and remains in the sheriff’s possession. Attached to the motion are numerous documents, including the sheriffs inventory of the items seized, most of which are computers, hard drives, diskettes, cameras, and computer and camera accessories. Some of the items were immediately transferred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, according to a document reflecting their receipt by that agency on the day they were seized. Jones’s motion does not describe the crimes with which he was charged or convicted but recites only that his motion is timely as it was filed within sixty days of the issuance of the mandate on his direct appeal. The circuit court issued an order summarily denying the motion without any explanation or record attachments to refute Jones’s claim that he is entitled to return of his property.
The circuit court should have first made a decision on the facial sufficiency of Jones’s motion. “A facially sufficient motion for return of property must specifically identify the property and allege that it is the movant’s personal property, that the property is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that the property is not being held as evidence.” Wilson v. State, 957 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (quoting Justice v. State, 944 So.2d 538, 589 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)). If the court in fact considered Jones’s motion facially sufficient, several courses of action were available. The court could have denied the motion on its merits with attachments to its order that conclusively refute Jones’s entitlement to return of the property, perhaps after ordering a response from the State. Alternatively, the court could have granted or denied the motion after holding an evidentiary hearing. See Almeda v. State, 959 So.2d 806, 809 n. 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In any event, a bare summary denial, without explanation or attachments, is improper; and we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
SILBERMAN and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…conclusively refute her claim. In her motion, Ms. Dawson alleged that items of specifically identified computer equipment were her personal property, were not the fruit of criminal activity, and were not being held as evidence. See Jones v. State, 42 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (setting forth allegations required to state a facially sufficient claim for return of property). In response, the Manatee County Sheriffs Office wrote a letter asserting that the authorization for release of property it atta…
-
Herbert J.T. Wilson, II v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…operty to Defendant. Because the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentia-ry hearing. See Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Jones v. State, 42 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings. REVERSED and REMANDED. LEWIS, C.J., MARSTILLER and OSTERHAUS, JJ, concur.…
-
Chapman v. State, 192 So. 3d 1277 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…ty by attaching documents that conclusively refute the movant’s entitlement to the property or it may grant or deny the. motion after holding an evidentiary, hearing.” Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (citing Jones v. State, 42 So. 3d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)). “[A] bare summary denial, without explanation or attachments, is improper....” Jones, 42 So. 3d at 875. Although it is possible that the trial court gave an explanation for its denial of Chapman’s motion at the August 21, 2…
Authorities Cited
- Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Blackwell v. State, 944 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)