Castleman v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Castleman v. State

165 So. 3d 61, 2015 WL 3464095

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 2, 2015

DocketNo. 1D14-5015

StatusPublished

This text of 165 So. 3d 61 (Castleman v. State) 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

Castleman v. State, 165 So. 3d 61, 2015 WL 3464095 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order summarily dismissing his motion to recover seized property. The trial court treated the motion as filed under section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2014), and dismissed it as untimely since it was filed outside the 60-day time frame articulated in the statute. Although the motion was clearly untimely, the order on appeal requires reversal because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to conclusively refute the appellant’s claims. See e.g., Burden v. State, 890 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that when summarily denying a motion for return of property under the 60-day time bar, the trial court must attach the portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence); Davis v. State, 63 So.3d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

On remand, the trial court must attach portions of the record demonstrating that [62]*62the property was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that it was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in custody of the court clerk. Otherwise, the property must be returned to the appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

The appellant appeals an order summarily dismissing his motion to recover seized property. The trial court treated the motion as filed under section 705.105(1), Florida Statutes (2014), and dismissed it as untimely since it was filed outside the 60-day time frame articulated in the statute. Although the motion was clearly untimely, the order on appeal requires reversal because the trial court failed to attach portions of the record to conclusively refute the appellant’s claims. See e.g., Burden v. State, 890 So.2d 566 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (holding that when summarily denying a motion for return of property under the 60-day time bar, the trial court must attach the portions of the record showing that the property was seized pursuant to a lawful investigation or held as evidence); Davis v. State, 63 So.3d 888 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011).

On remand, the trial court must attach portions of the record demonstrating that [62]*62the property was seized and held as evidence by law enforcement or that it was seized pursuant to an investigation and was in custody of the court clerk. Otherwise, the property must be returned to the appellant.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 So. 3d 61, 2015 WL 3464095, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castleman-v-state-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack