JORGE ALBERTO GONZALEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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.
Gonzalez appealed a trial court's denial of his motion to vacate an order returning personal property to its rightful owner. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the property once it had been returned to its owner and was no longer held in custodia legis.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction over the personal property once it had been returned to its rightful owner and was no longer held in custodia legis. Therefore, Gonzalez could not seek relief through motion or pleading in the criminal proceeding, though he may pursue alternative remedies through an original civil proceeding.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction over personal property once it has been returned to its rightful owner pursuant to an unappealed order.
[2] A trial court's inherent authority over property held in custodia legis in a criminal proceeding terminates when the property is no longer held by the court.
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 trial court's jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes the inherent authority over property seized or otherwise obtained in connection with the proceeding and held by the court in custodia legis.”
Establishes the general rule regarding trial court jurisdiction over seized property in criminal cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn July 2013, a trial court issued an order returning personal property to its rightful owner pursuant to a joint motion signed by Gonzalez's trial co…
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 Termination Of Jurisdiction cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s denial of Gonzalez’s motion, filed in a criminal proceeding but pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, seeking to vacate a July 2013 order which returned certain personal property to its rightful owner. Gonzalez filed his motion in January 2014, asserting that he was unaware of this July 2013 order,1 and further asserting that he is the rightful owner of the property.
The State argues that Gonzalez was not permitted to invoke rule 1.540 in the criminal proceeding below. However, we need not reach that issue (or the additional merits arguments made by the State) as we hold that the trial court no longer had jurisdiction over the personal property at issue.
A trial court’s jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes the inherent authority over property seized or otherwise obtained in connection with the proceeding and held by the court in custodia legis. See Garmire v. Red Lake, 265 So.2d 2 (Fla.1972); Sawyer v. Gable, 400 So.2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Daniel v. State, 991 So.2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008). “This authority continues beyond the termination of the prosecution, thus enabling the court to direct the return of the property to its rightful owner.” Stevens v. State, 929 So.2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).
However, because the personal property in this case had been returned to its rightful owner (a private citizen) pursuant to an order that was not appealed2, the property is no longer held in custodia *71 legis, and the trial court’s authority over that property has terminated. See Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Heinrich v. Johnson, 549 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). See also State ex rel. Gerstein v. Durant, 348 So.2d 405, 407 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (applying section 812.061, Florida Statutes and holding that an application for return of property “may not be made when the property sought to be returned is not held in custodia legis within the territorial jurisdiction of the court.”). We express no opinion whether Gonzalez may properly pursue an alternative remedy through an original proceeding in civil court or otherwise; we hold merely that he may no longer seek such relief through motion or pleading in the criminal proceeding.
AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Garmire v. Lake, 265 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 1972)
- Sawyer v. Honorable Ellen Morphonios Gable, 400 So. 2d 992 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Richard E. Gerstein v. The Honorable N. Joseph Durant, Jr., 348 So. 2d 405 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Stevens v. State, 929 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
- Heinrich v. Johnson, 549 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Davies v. State, 934 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Daniel v. State, 991 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)