JAMES R. BAILEY, 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.
James Bailey appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for return of a gold necklace seized during his burglary conviction, without an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court reverses, holding that the trial court must conduct a hearing to determine whether the property has a continuing evidentiary purpose and whether the defendant's prior motion was timely filed.
The trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a motion for return of property. The fact that property was entered into evidence at trial is insufficient grounds for denial; the State must demonstrate a continuing need for the property. If a prior motion was timely provided to prison officials under the mailbox rule, a subsequent motion based on that filing should not be denied as untimely.
[1] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing before denying a motion for the return of seized property if the defendant's allegations are not conclusively refuted.
[2] A defendant seeking the return of seized property must allege that the property is exclusively his own, not the fruit of illegal activity, and not being held for evidenti…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“If the court is unable to conclusively refute the defendant's allegations, an evidentiary hearing is required before a court denies a motion for return of property.”
Establishes the mandatory evidentiary hearing requirement when the defendant's allegations cannot be conclusively refuted
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBailey was convicted in 2006 of burglary with assault or battery, aggravated battery, and battery on a person 65 or older. A gold necklace belonging t…
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
Appellant, James R. Bailey, appeals the trial court’s August 29, 2011 order denying his motion for return of property without holding an evidentiary hearing. Because the trial court failed to hold an evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
On February 16, 2006, Appellant was tried by a jury and convicted of burglary with an assault or battery, aggravated battery and battery on a person 65 years or older. During the trial, the state introduced a gold necklace belonging to Appellant as State’s exhibit 35. On March 1, 2006, the trial court sentenced Appellant to a total of 25 years of incarceration. This Court affirmed Appellant’s conviction in his direct appeal in Bailey v. State, 952 So.2d 1194 (Table), (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), with a mandate issued April 16, 2007.
The procedure for a defendant to move for the return of seized property is similar to a motion for post-conviction relief. The defendant must file a timely motion alleging three things: that the property is exclusively his own, that it was not the fruit of illegal activity, and that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes. If the motion is facially sufficient, the court may issue an order to show cause to the State to assist the court in determining whether the defendant’s allegations can be conclusively refuted. If the court is unable to conclusively refute the defendant’s allegations, an evidentiary hearing is required before a court denies a motion for return of property. Sanchez v. State, 88 So.3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
In this case, Appellant filed a Motion for Return of Property and the trial court issued an Order Directing State to Respond. The State’s response indicated that the property Appellant seeks the return of was previously entered into evidence at trial. The State also alleged that the Appellant’s motion was untimely. Petitioner filed an Answer to State’s Response and attached an additional “Motion to Return Property” with a “Provided to Hamilton County Cl for Mailing” stamp dated May 2, 2007, which Petitioner alleges was never ruled upon.
The trial court found that because the necklace was entered into evidence at the trial, Petitioner is not entitled to the return of the necklace. The fact that the property was previously entered into evidence at the trial level is insufficient to deny the motion without a hearing. Rather the State must show a continuing need for the property. Thomas v. State, 997 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008).
The trial court also found that the motion was untimely because Section 705.105, Fla. Stat. requires a motion for return of property be filed within 60 days of the “conclusion of the proceeding” or date of the mandate. However, based on the Motion to Return Property attached to Petitioner’s Answer to State’s Response it appears that Petitioner timely filed a prior motion that was never ruled upon. This prior motion does not appear on the trial court’s docket; nevertheless if it was timely provided to prison officials it is deemed *520filed pursuant to the mailbox rule. Mayo v. State, 977 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). As such, if the prior motion and May 2, 2007 date stamp are authentic, Petitioner’s current claim should not be denied as untimely. See Forbes v. State, 826 So.2d 421 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002).
Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing to provide the defendant an opportunity to prove 1) whether the prior motion and date stamp are authentic, 2) whether the property is exclusively his own, 3) that the property was not the fruit of illegal activity, and 4) that the property is not being held for continuing evidentiary purposes.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
VAN NORTWICK and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency sixty days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.1 Thus, in order to seek the return of seized property, a defendant must file a motion within that sixty-day period. See Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). A criminal proceeding is concluded when, inter alia, the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward…
-
Watkins v. State, 230 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…the motion must allege three things regarding the seized property: (1) that it is exclusively the. movant’s own property; (2) that it was not the fruit of illegal activity; and (8) that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes. Bailey v. State, 93 So. 3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Florida case law requires that, if a motion for the return of property is not sufficiently pled, the trial court, prior to entering a final order denying the motion, must first identify the deficiencies and allow the movant…
-
Herbert J.T. Wilson, II v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…peals an order summarily denying his Motion to Return Property 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.…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sanchez v. State, 88 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Thomas v. State, 997 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Auman v. Leverock's Seafood House, 997 So. 2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)
- Everitte L. Forbes v. State, 826 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)
- Mayo v. State, 977 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)