ROLLIN MONESTIME, 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.
The court held that the motion for return of property was untimely filed more than 60 days after the conclusion of the criminal proceeding.
[1] Title to unclaimed evidence or tangible personal property seized in a criminal proceeding vests permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after the conclusion of…
[2] A criminal proceeding is concluded for purposes of unclaimed property statutes when the appellate court's mandate issues on a direct appeal of a defendant's judgment and…
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 intelligenceRollin Monestime, convicted of trafficking and money laundering, sought the return of $738,804.00 seized upon his arrest. He claimed the money was aba…
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 Return Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
Rollin Monestime appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for return Of property pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (2016). We affirm.
Monestime was charged in 2006 with trafficking and money laundering. He went to trial and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years. His direct appeal of his conviction and sentence was affirmed. Monestime v. State, 41 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [3D09-232]. His subsequent postcon-viction petition was denied, and this Court affirmed. Monestime v. State, 107 So.3d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [3D11-3060].
In 2016, Monestime moved to have returned to him the $738,804.00 seized upon his arrest in 2006. He claims that the money, all cash in a black duffle, was abandoned in his room by an unknown person who never claimed it. Thus, he argues, it is his property. The trial court denied the motion to return property, citing the motion’s untimeliness under section 705.106, Florida Statutes (2016). That statute sets forth the procedure regarding unclaimed evidence:
(1) Title' 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 con-clusfon of the proceeding.
§ 705.105 Florida Statutes (2016), Thus,.in order to seek the return of seized property, a defendant must file a motion within that sixty-day period. A criminal proceeding is concluded when the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Davis v. State, 198 So.3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So.3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As more than sixty days have elapsed since the mandate issued in Monestime’s direct criminal appeal in 2010, the trial court’s order citing to the untimeliness of the motion pursuant to section 705.105 is correct. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montero v. State (Fla. 3d DCA 2025)
Authorities Cited
- Ward v. Dugger, 508 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)
- Rollin Monestime v. State, 41 So. 3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)
- Carlile Breland v. State, 58 So. 3d 326 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)