Cloud v. State

Odis Ray CLOUD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 14, 2001.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2001-11-14

Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently June 2016

11 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the motion. The trial court did not attach any portions of the record to its order, and we cannot determine whether Cloud's property was seized pursuant to section 705.105. On remand, the trial court must attach those portions of the record indicating that the property was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation and was in the custody of the clerk of the court; otherwise, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 810 So. 2d 573 - Cloud v. State

Relies on Gomez v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2001-11-14

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1CASANUEVA, Judge.

¶2Odis Cloud appeals the order of the trial court denying as untimely his motion for return of property filed pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (2000). We reverse and remand for reconsideration of the motion. The trial court did not attach any portions of the record to its order, and we cannot determine whether Cloud's property was seized pursuant to section 705.105. On remand, the trial court must attach those portions of the record indicating that the property was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation and was in the custody of the clerk of the court; otherwise, the trial court shall conduct an evidentiary hearing. See Hughes v. State,768 So.2d 512 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

¶3Reversed and remanded.

¶4ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and NORTHCUTT, J., concur.