¶1 Because appellant’s related criminal case is currently the subject of a direct appeal, we affirm the circuit court’s denial of his motion to return property seized at the time of his arrest. Cf. McKeever' v. State, 764 So.2d 688, 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (observing that once the “direct appeal concludes[,] ... the trial court cannot rely on the state’s unsupported assertion that it needs to retain private property.”).
¶2 Affirmed.