Campbell v. Chin

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campbell v. Chin

84 So. 3d 475, 2012 WL 1231580, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5619

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 12, 2012

Docket1D11-5712

StatusPublished

This text of 84 So. 3d 475 (Campbell v. Chin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Campbell v. Chin, 84 So. 3d 475, 2012 WL 1231580, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5619 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Larry Campbell, challenges a final order of the criminal court returning currency that was seized from Appellee, Alston A. Chin, after his arrest for drug charges. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the motion, even though Appellant contended the currency was seized pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, because trial courts have inherent authority over property held in custodia legis. Daniel v. State, 991 So.2d 421, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that “[A] trial court that has jurisdiction over criminal proceedings has priority jurisdiction over other courts to determine whether property seized for use in criminal proceedings is to be retained or returned to the owner.”) Moreover, the trial court properly determined that the currency was not seized pursuant to the Forfei *476 ture Act because the release signed by Appellant purporting to transfer all interest in the property to the Leon County Sheriffs Department failed to contain a written waiver of Appellee’s right to have the agreement reviewed by the court, a mediator, or an arbitrator. § 923.704(7), Fla. Stat. (2009). We, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court returning the currency to Appellee.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Larry Campbell, challenges a final order of the criminal court returning currency that was seized from Appellee, Alston A. Chin, after his arrest for drug charges. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to rule on the motion, even though Appellant contended the currency was seized pursuant to the Florida Contraband Forfeiture Act, because trial courts have inherent authority over property held in custodia legis. Daniel v. State, 991 So.2d 421, 423 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (holding that “[A] trial court that has jurisdiction over criminal proceedings has priority jurisdiction over other courts to determine whether property seized for use in criminal proceedings is to be retained or returned to the owner.”) Moreover, the trial court properly determined that the currency was not seized pursuant to the Forfei *476 ture Act because the release signed by Appellant purporting to transfer all interest in the property to the Leon County Sheriffs Department failed to contain a written waiver of Appellee’s right to have the agreement reviewed by the court, a mediator, or an arbitrator. § 923.704(7), Fla. Stat. (2009). We, therefore, affirm the order of the trial court returning the currency to Appellee.

AFFIRMED.

DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, and PADOVANO, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

84 So. 3d 475, 2012 WL 1231580, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-chin-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack