In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693

District Court of Appeal of Florida

In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693

334 So. 2d 82, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided June 22, 1976·No. No. 75-1737·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals from an order directing that Paul Costigliola’s automobile be returned to him.

Pursuant to § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. the police seized Paul Costigliola’s automobile when he was arrested for possession of marijuana while in his automobile. Mr. Costigliola pled guilty to the charge and as a first offender was placed on probation. The police refused to return his automobile and the State petitioned for a rule to show cause why the car should not be forfeited pursuant to § 943.44, F.S. After hearing, the trial judge ordered the vehicle returned to Mr. Costigliola. The State appeals. We affirm.

Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. State, 152 Fla. 297, 11 So.2d 482 (1943). Further, as forfeiture statutes [83] are intended to apply to those individuals who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise, § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., authorizing forfeitures, is discretionary and not mandatory. See In re 1972 Porsche 2 Dr., '74 Fla.Lic.Tag ID 91780, Fla.App.1975, 307 So.2d 451.

It is apparent from the transcript that through plea negotiations, the State accepted a guilty plea to posession of marijuana, a misdeameanor offense under § 893.13(1) (f), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in ordering return of Mr. Costigliola’s automobile to him.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals from an order directing that Paul Costigliola’s automobile be returned to him.

Pursuant to § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. the police seized Paul Costigliola’s automobile when he was arrested for possession of marijuana while in his automobile. Mr. Costigliola pled guilty to the charge and as a first offender was placed on probation. The police refused to return his automobile and the State petitioned for a rule to show cause why the car should not be forfeited pursuant to § 943.44, F.S. After hearing, the trial judge ordered the vehicle returned to Mr. Costigliola. The State appeals. We affirm.

Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. State, 152 Fla. 297, 11 So.2d 482 (1943). Further, as forfeiture statutes [83] are intended to apply to those individuals who are significantly involved in a criminal enterprise, § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., authorizing forfeitures, is discretionary and not mandatory. See In re 1972 Porsche 2 Dr., '74 Fla.Lic.Tag ID 91780, Fla.App.1975, 307 So.2d 451.

It is apparent from the transcript that through plea negotiations, the State accepted a guilty plea to posession of marijuana, a misdeameanor offense under § 893.13(1) (f), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in ordering return of Mr. Costigliola’s automobile to him.

Affirmed.

In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693, 334 So. 2d 82, 1976 Fla. App. LEXIS 14559 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

334 So. 2d 82 (In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related