YOLANDA DAWSON, 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.
The court held that a circuit court erred in summarily denying a motion for return of property without attaching record portions that conclusively refute the claim.
Yolanda Dawson filed a motion for return of computer equipment, asserting it was her personal property and not evidence or the fruit of criminal activ…
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 Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Yolanda Dawson appeals the order summarily denying her motion for return of property and request for telephonic hearing. We reverse because Ms. Dawson’s motion is facially sufficient and the circuit court summarily denied it without attaching portions of the record that 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 attached showed that the subject property is in the possession of the postal inspector.
The circuit court summarily denied Ms. Dawson’s motion without attaching portions of the record conclusively refuting her claim. This was error. A circuit court may deny a facially sufficient motion for return of property 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. Id.; Almeda v. State, 959 So.2d *1291806, 809 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). A property receipt or authorization for release of property from a law enforcement agency alone without any explanation may not conclusively refute a motion for return of property. See Justice v. State, 944 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions for the circuit court to either attach portions of the record conclusively refuting Ms. Dawson’s motion or hold an evidentiary hearing.
NORTHCUTT and VILLANTI, JJ„ Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 230 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…mmarily denies such a motion on the merits, similar to an order summarily denying a post-conviction motion, the order must attach to it those portions of the record conclusively establishing that the movant is entitled to no relief. Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1290, 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). . We express no opinion as to whether the trial court, in determining the sufficiency of Watkins's December 30, 2015 motion, may consider allegations contained in Watkins’s prior motions. .Section 705,105(1) reáds, in its…
-
Robertus F. Ooms v. State, 138 So. 3d 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…mmarily denying the appellant’s motion to return property and reasoning that “[b]ecause the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing”); Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 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 S…
-
Nofsinger v. State, 172 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015)…motion for return of property.” Id. (noting that the fact that the property was entered into evidence is insufficient for the denial of a motion without a hearing and the State must show a continuing need for the property); see also Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing the summary denial of the appellant’s motion for return of property and remanding to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute her motion or hold an evidentia…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Almeda v. State, 959 So. 2d 806 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Blackwell v. State, 944 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Jones v. State, 42 So. 3d 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)