ROBERTUS F. OOMS, 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 appellate court reversed the trial court's summary denial of a motion for return of property because the motion was facially sufficient and required either conclusive refutation or an evidentiary hearing.
When a motion for return of property is facially sufficient, the trial court must either conclusively refute the allegations with record evidence or hold an evidentiary hearing, not summarily deny the motion.
[1] A trial court must either conclusively refute a facially sufficient motion for return of property with record evidence or hold an evidentiary hearing; summary denial is i…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobertus F. Ooms appealed an order summarily denying his motion for return of property.…
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 Facial Sufficiency cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant, Robertus F. Ooms, appeals an order summarily denying his motion for return of property. The State properly concedes that because the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. See Wilson v. State, 121 So.3d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the order summarily 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 So.3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion to return seized property because “[t]he postconviction court erred in basing its denial of the motion on the factual representations of an attorney for the sheriffs department”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion for return of property and remand the case to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- West v. State, 35 So. 3d 175 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010)
- Dawson v. State, 104 So. 3d 1290 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)
- Herbert J.T. Wilson, II v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
- Rivero v. State, 121 So. 3d 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)