ANGEL M. MIGUEL A/K/A MIGUEL ANGEL, 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.
Angel Miguel appeals the denial of his postconviction motion for return of property. The court holds that while the motion was facially insufficient, the trial court erred by denying it without allowing Miguel an opportunity to amend the motion to cure the deficiencies.
The trial court erred in denying the motion as facially insufficient without granting Miguel leave to amend. When a motion for return of property is dismissed as facially insufficient, the court must identify the deficiencies and grant the movant an opportunity to amend within a reasonable time.
[1] A motion for return of property is timely if filed within sixty days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.
[2] A trial court errs in denying a motion for return of property as facially insufficient without granting the movant an opportunity to amend the motion.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 dismisses the motion [for return of property] as facially insufficient, it shall identify the deficiencies and grant [movant] leave to amend within a reasonable time”
Establishes the procedural requirement that courts must give movants opportunity to cure facial insufficiencies in 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 intelligenceMiguel pleaded guilty on March 8, 2016, and did not appeal from the judgment and sentence, which became final on April 7, 2016. Miguel filed a motion …
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 Leave To Amend cases and more on FLexlaw
Angel M. Miguel appeals from the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion for return of property. While we agree that the motion was facially insufficient,1 we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion without granting Miguel an opportunity to amend the motion to set forth a facially sufficient claim.
*67The trial court denied the motion as both untimely and facially insufficient. On appeal, the State properly concedes that the motion was timely. See § 705.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that “[t]itle to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of the proceeding”); Davis v. State, 198 So.3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (holding sixty-day time period under section 705.105 did not commence until appellate court issued mandate following direct appeal of conviction). In the instant case, Miguel pleaded guilty on March 8, 2016, and did not take an appeal from the judgment and sentence, which therefore became final on April 7, 2016. Thus, April 7, 2016 constitutes the date of the “conclusion of the proceeding” under section 705.105(1), and Miguel had sixty days from that date — until June 6, 2016 — to file his motion. Miguel filed his motion on June 3, 2016, and it was therefore timely.
The State also properly concedes that, given that Miguel’s motion was timely filed, the trial court erred in denying the motion as facially insufficient without granting Miguel an opportunity to amend his motion to state a facially sufficient claim. Wilson v. State, 957 So.2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (holding that “[i]f the court dismisses the motion [for return of property] as facially insufficient, it shall identify the deficiencies and grant [mov-ant] leave to amend within a reasonable time”); Arel v. State, 160 So.3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
We therefore reverse the trial court’s order and remand for the trial court to enter an order denying the motion as facially insufficient and granting leave for Miguel to file an amended motion within sixty days. If Miguel files an amended motion that remains facially insufficient, the trial court may enter a final order denying the motion. If Miguel files an amended motion that is facially sufficient, the trial court shall either conduct an evi-dentiary hearing or summarily deny the motion by an order that attaches those portions of the record which conclusively establish Miguel is entitled to no relief. Holmes v. State, 997 So.2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008); Bolden v. State, 875 So.2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).
Reversed and remanded with directions.
Before WELLS, LAGOA and EMAS, JJ.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Watkins v. State, 230 So. 3d 1244 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…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 an opportunity to amend the motion within a reasonable time. Miguel v. State, 209 So. 3d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Arel v. State, 160 So. 3d 104, 105-06 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264, 1265 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). If the trial court finds the motion to be facially sufficient, then it may order the State to cite applicab…
Authorities Cited
- Deatrick S. Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)
- Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- Arel v. State, 160 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)
- Holmes v. State, 997 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)