Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

926 So. 2d 473

Docket No. 2D05-5426.

White v. State

Chester WHITE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2006-04-19

Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently May 2019

15 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“A trial court's jurisdiction over a criminal proceeding includes inherent authority over property seized or obtained in connection with the proceeding and thus held in custodia legis.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Reyneldon J. Davis v. State, Almeda v. State

“This authority continues beyond the termination of the prosecution, thus enabling the court to direct the return of the property to its rightful owner.”

quoted by 4 later decisions, including Almeda v. State, 944 So. 2d 538 - Justice v. State

Relies on 781 So. 2d 1187 - Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State · Cloud v. State · McKinnon v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2006-04-19

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1NORTHCUTT, Judge.

¶2Chester White appeals the circuit court's summary denial of his motion seeking the return of property allegedly seized from him when he was arrested on a drug possession charge. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

¶3White pleaded guilty to possession of cocaine with the intent to sell or deliver. *474 On March 16, 2005, he was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to imprisonment for a year and a day. On August 16, 2005, White filed a motion seeking the return of $873.00 in cash that he alleged was taken from him at the time of his arrest. The circuit court summarily denied Whites motion.

¶4A trial court that has jurisdiction over criminal proceedings is vested with inherent authority over property seized or obtained in connection with the criminal proceeding and thus held in custodia legis. See Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So.2d 1187, 1191-92 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), and cases discussed therein. This authority continues beyond the termination of the criminal prosecution, thus enabling the court to direct the return of such property to its rightful owner. Id. However, section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2004), provides that title to unclaimed evidence or personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation that is in the custody of the court or clerk as part of 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 sixty days after the conclusion of the proceeding.

¶5In this case, the circuit court summarily denied White's motion as untimely under the foregoing statute, and attached copies of his judgment and sentence. However, when summarily denying a motion for return of property as untimely under this provision, the court is obliged to attach portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence. Burden v. State, 890 So.2d 566, 567 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cloud v. State, 801 So.2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); McKinnon v. State, 752 So.2d 134, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

¶6If, on remand, the circuit court again summarily denies White's motion, it must attach portions of the record demonstrating that the currency was seized and held as evidence by the law enforcement agency involved or that it was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in the custody of the court clerk. Otherwise, the court must entertain the motion on its merits. See Cloud, 801 So.2d at 964.

¶7Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

¶8SALCINES and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

/926/so2d/473 · .json · Public domain