Dismuke v. Office of the State Attorney

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Dismuke v. Office of the State Attorney

948 So. 2d 1039, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2593, 2007 WL 542750

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 23, 2007

DocketNo. 5D06-2236

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 948 So. 2d 1039 (Dismuke v. Office of the State Attorney) 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

Dismuke v. Office of the State Attorney, 948 So. 2d 1039, 2007 Fla. App. LEXIS 2593, 2007 WL 542750 (Fla. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dismuke filed a writ of replevin seeking the return of three items of jewelry allegedly taken from him after his arrest on violation of probation charges. The trial court treated Dismuke’s writ of replevin as a motion for return of property. The trial court properly dismissed Dismuke’s motion because of its failure to allege that the jewelry was not the fruit of [1040]*1040criminal activity. Scott v. State, 922 So.2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).

We find this order is an appealable interlocutory order because it determined the right to immediate possession of property. Fla. R.App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii); see also Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 781 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). The trial court’s dismissal of Dismuke’s motion was without prejudice. Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s decision. Such affirmance is without prejudice to Dismuke filing an amended motion in the circuit court.

AFFIRMED.

PLEUS, C.J., SAWAYA and EVANDER, JJ., concur.

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