MARXENE JUSTE, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Marxene Juste appealed the trial court's summary denial of his motion for return of $1,251 in currency seized during his 2005 arrest. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions that conclusively refuted Juste's allegations.
The trial court erred in denying the motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching record portions that conclusively refuted the allegations. When a defendant files a facially sufficient motion for return of property with proper service and substantiation, an evidentiary hearing is required before denial unless the record conclusively refutes the allegations.
[1] A motion for return of seized property is facially sufficient if it specifically describes the property, alleges it is the movant's personal property, and states it is no…
[2] A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing on a motion for return of seized property unless the record conclusively refutes the movant's allegations.
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“The trial court erred in denying the motion without first conducting an evidentiary hearing or attaching portions of the record which conclusively refuted the allegations.”
Establishes the primary error and the standard requiring evidentiary hearing or conclusive refutation from the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn October 2005, Juste was arrested and charged with felonies. At arrest, $1,251 in U.S. currency was seized by the North Miami Police Department. Jus…
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 Refutation of Allegations cases and more on FLexlaw
Marxene Juste has filed a petition for writ of mandamus, which we treat as an appeal of the trial court’s order summarily denying his motion for return of personal property seized by law enforcement. We reverse the. trial court’s order denying the motion.
In October of 2005, Juste was arrested and charged with several felonies. At the time of his arrest, $1251 in United States currency was seized from him by the North Miami Police Department. Juste alleges that these monies continue to be held by the North Miami Police Department or by the Miami-Dade Police Department.
Juste filed an initial motion for return of property. In his motion, Juste alleged that the money is his personal property, that it is not the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not and is not being held as evidence. The trial court denied the motion, but did so without prejudice for Juste to provide proof of service upon the seizing agency as well as proof of the amount of money he was requesting be returned.
Juste thereafter filed supplemental documentation establishing proof of the amount of money sought to be returned,1 and evidencing service upon both police agencies.2 The trial court denied the mo*380tion3 without an evidentiary hearing, and it is this order from which Juste appeals.
The trial court erred in denying the motion without first conducting an eviden-tiary hearing or attaching portions of the record which conclusively refuted the allegations. Juste filed a facially sufficient motion, see Bolden v. State, 875 So.2d 780, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (a facially sufficient motion for return of property must specifically describe the property at issue, and must allege that the property was his personal property, was not the fruit of criminal activity, and was not being held as evidence) and, as directed by the trial court in its earlier denial without prejudice, provided proof of the amount of money seized and proof of service upon the seizing agency.
We reverse the trial court’s order and remand for further proceedings. The trial court may issue an order to show cause to enlist the State’s assistance in determining whether Juste’s allegations can be conclusively refuted. If the record does not conclusively refute the allegations, an evi-dentiary hearing is required before a court may deny the motion. Sanchez v. State, 88 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peterson v. State, 249 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…nce." Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806, 808 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citations omitted). If the motion is facially sufficient, the circuit court can summarily deny it, but must attach portions of the record conclusively refuting the claim. Juste v. State, 101 So. 3d 379, 380 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012). However, if the record does not conclusively refute a facially sufficient motion, an evidentiary hearing is required before the circuit court can deny the motion. Id. Peterson's motion was facially sufficient because it ide…
-
Peterson v. State, 249 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
Authorities Cited
- Deatrick S. Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Sanchez v. State, 88 So. 3d 389 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)