CHARLEY STEVENSON, 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.
Charlie Stevenson appealed the trial court's denial of his petition to recover cash seized from him at arrest. The appellate court reversed, holding that Florida's 60-day statute for unclaimed evidence does not apply when property was not seized as evidence or during a criminal investigation.
Section 705.105 does not apply because the property was not seized as evidence or pursuant to a lawful criminal investigation. The statute applies only when the state has a legitimate interest in property seized, and here the record fails to demonstrate the sheriffs department seized or held the cash as evidence.
[1] A statute governing unclaimed evidence does not apply when the state has no legitimate interest in the seized property, such as when the property was not seized as eviden…
[2] A law enforcement agency cannot claim title to a defendant's property held for safekeeping during incarceration solely based on the untimeliness of a request for its retu…
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“Section 705.105 applies when the state has a legitimate interest in property it has seized. Here, there is no indication that the state ever had an interest in the Stevenson's property.”
Establishes the threshold requirement that the statute only applies when the state has a legitimate interest in seized property
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1990, Orange County sheriffs arrested Stevenson for violating probation. At arrest, cash was taken from him. The trial court revoked his p…
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 Seized Property cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, Judge.
Charlie Stevenson appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition for the return of cash taken from him at the time of his arrest. We reverse because there is no legal basis to support the ruling.
In November 1990, the Orange County sheriffs office arrested Mr. Stevenson for violating his probation. The trial court revoked Stevenson’s probation and sentenced him to a term in prison. While serving his sentence, Stevenson petitioned the trial court for the return of cash he said was taken from him at the time of his arrest. He alleged that he had not been given a receipt for the money, the money had not been placed in his inmate account, and the state had not initiated forfeiture proceedings. Stevenson further alleged that the cash had not been used as evidence against him and it had not been taken during the course of a criminal investigation.
The state responded by urging the trial court to deny the petition because it was untimely. To support this argument, the state relied upon section 705.105, Florida Statutes (1995), which provides, in pertinent part:
705.105. 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 conclusion of the proceeding.
Relying on this statute, the trial court denied Stevenson’s petition as being untimely because it had not been filed within sixty days of sentencing. Stevenson appeals this ruling.
Section 705.105 applies when the state has a legitimate interest in property it has seized. Here, there is no indication that the state ever had an interest in the Stevenson’s property. The record before us fails to demonstrate that the sheriffs department seized or held the cash as evidence or that the property was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in the custody of the court clerk. The state offers no explanation as to how the cash was relevant to the violation of probation charge, and the trial court made no finding in this regard. Accordingly, since the property was not seized as evidence or during a lawful criminal investigation, section 705.105 does not apply. A contrary ruling would allow the state to maintain possession of a defendant’s property held for safekeeping during the defendant’s incarceration merely because a request for its return was not timely made.
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceeding.
PETERSON, C.J., and THOMPSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So. 2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…a. 1st DCA 2000) (“Once direct appeal concludes — or, as here, time for taking a direct appeal has run — the trial court cannot rely on the state’s unsupported assertion that it needs to retain private property.”); Oleandi; Kern; Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); McCants v. State, 671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Helmy; Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). Moreover, specific statutory provisions may constitute the basis for refusal to return certain types of property. S…
-
Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)…, 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKinnon v. State, 752 So. 2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). The trial court made no finding as to the relevance of the money to Burden’s charges or that the State had an interest in Burden’s property. See Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). On remand, the trial court must attach those portions of the record indicating that the cash was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that it was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in the custody of…
-
Poux v. State, 985 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…t the police seized the property pursuant to a lawful investigation or held the property as evidence. We have considered White v. State, 926 So. 2d 473 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), Burden v. State, 890 So. 2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005), and Stevenson v. State, 688 So. 2d 962 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997), but deem them inapposite. In those cases, the issues involved application of section 705.105, Florida Statutes, providing for transfer of seized property to law enforcement agencies. Here, however, ten years passed between the…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence