Berkman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Berkman v. State

666 So. 2d 606, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 892, 1996 WL 47688

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 7, 1996·No. No. 95-3628·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State confesses error in the trial court’s partial denial of appellant’s motion to return property, which left three handguns seized from appellant during an arrest in the State’s custody. Because the seized firearms are neither the subject of any charges pending against appellant nor necessary evidence for the charges currently pending, Section 790.08(3) of the Florida Statutes mandates their return to appellant. Davila v. State, 655 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cameiro v. State, 464 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

REVERSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

The State confesses error in the trial court’s partial denial of appellant’s motion to return property, which left three handguns seized from appellant during an arrest in the State’s custody. Because the seized firearms are neither the subject of any charges pending against appellant nor necessary evidence for the charges currently pending, Section 790.08(3) of the Florida Statutes mandates their return to appellant. Davila v. State, 655 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995); Cameiro v. State, 464 So.2d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).

REVERSED.

Berkman v. State, 666 So. 2d 606, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 892, 1996 WL 47688 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

666 So. 2d 606 (Berkman v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related