Marlow v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Marlow v. State

98 So. 3d 1239, 2012 WL 4511562, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16558

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 3, 2012

DocketNo. 3D12-786

StatusPublished

This text of 98 So. 3d 1239 (Marlow 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

Marlow v. State, 98 So. 3d 1239, 2012 WL 4511562, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16558 (Fla. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

ROTHENBERG, J.

Anthony Marlow appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for the return of personal property, which was seized after he was arrested in December 2010. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Contrary to the State’s position, Mar-low’s motion was facially sufficient. He alleged that the seized property was his own, that it was neither contraband nor the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence. See Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a facially sufficient motion for the return of seized property is one in which the defendant alleges “that the property was exclusively his or her own, that it was not contraband or the [1240]*1240fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence or by similar lawful justification”). Therefore, we reverse the denial of Marlow’s motion for return of personal property, and remand for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant must “prove the property is exclusively his own, that it was not the fruit of illegal activity, and that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes.” Sanchez v. State, 88 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). If the motion is granted, the State shall exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the property is in the possession of the North Miami Beach Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.

Reversed and remanded.

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

ROTHENBERG, J.

Anthony Marlow appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion for the return of personal property, which was seized after he was arrested in December 2010. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Contrary to the State’s position, Mar-low’s motion was facially sufficient. He alleged that the seized property was his own, that it was neither contraband nor the fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence. See Brown v. State, 613 So.2d 569, 570 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (holding that a facially sufficient motion for the return of seized property is one in which the defendant alleges “that the property was exclusively his or her own, that it was not contraband or the [1240]*1240fruit of criminal activity, and that it was not being held as evidence or by similar lawful justification”). Therefore, we reverse the denial of Marlow’s motion for return of personal property, and remand for an evidentiary hearing where the defendant must “prove the property is exclusively his own, that it was not the fruit of illegal activity, and that it is not being held for evidentiary purposes.” Sanchez v. State, 88 So.3d 389, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). If the motion is granted, the State shall exercise reasonable diligence to determine whether the property is in the possession of the North Miami Beach Police Department or any other law enforcement agency.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 So. 3d 1239, 2012 WL 4511562, 2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 16558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlow-v-state-fladistctapp-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack