Monestime v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Monestime v. State

220 So. 3d 493, 2017 WL 1927728, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6589

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 10, 2017

Docket17-0166

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 220 So. 3d 493 (Monestime 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

Monestime v. State, 220 So. 3d 493, 2017 WL 1927728, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6589 (Fla. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUAREZ, C.J.

Rollin Monestime appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for return Of property pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (2016). We affirm.

Monestime was charged in 2006 with trafficking and money laundering. He went to trial and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years. His direct appeal of his conviction and sentence was affirmed. Monestime v. State, 41 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [3D09-232]. His subsequent postcon-viction petition was denied, and this Court affirmed. Monestime v. State, 107 So.3d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [3D11-3060].

In 2016, Monestime moved to have returned to him the $738,804.00 seized upon his arrest in 2006. He claims that the money, all cash in a black duffle, was abandoned in his room by an unknown person who never claimed it. Thus, he argues, it is his property. The trial court denied the motion to return property, citing the motion’s untimeliness under section 705.106, Florida Statutes (2016). That statute sets forth the procedure regarding unclaimed evidence:

(1) Title' to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after the con-clusfon of the proceeding.

§ 705.105 Florida Statutes (2016), Thus,.in order to seek the return of seized property, a defendant must file a motion within that sixty-day period. A criminal proceeding is concluded when the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Davis v. State, 198 So.3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So.3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As more than sixty days have elapsed since the mandate issued in Monestime’s direct criminal appeal in 2010, the trial court’s order citing to the untimeliness of the motion pursuant to section 705.105 is correct. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

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

SUAREZ, C.J.

Rollin Monestime appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion for return Of property pursuant to section 705.105, Florida Statutes (2016). We affirm.

Monestime was charged in 2006 with trafficking and money laundering. He went to trial and was convicted and sentenced to fifteen years. His direct appeal of his conviction and sentence was affirmed. Monestime v. State, 41 So.3d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) [3D09-232]. His subsequent postcon-viction petition was denied, and this Court affirmed. Monestime v. State, 107 So.3d 420 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) [3D11-3060].

In 2016, Monestime moved to have returned to him the $738,804.00 seized upon his arrest in 2006. He claims that the money, all cash in a black duffle, was abandoned in his room by an unknown person who never claimed it. Thus, he argues, it is his property. The trial court denied the motion to return property, citing the motion’s untimeliness under section 705.106, Florida Statutes (2016). That statute sets forth the procedure regarding unclaimed evidence:

(1) Title' to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property lawfully seized pursuant to a lawful investigation in the custody of the court or clerk of the court from a criminal proceeding or seized as evidence by and in the custody of a law enforcement agency shall vest permanently in the law enforcement agency 60 days after the con-clusfon of the proceeding.

§ 705.105 Florida Statutes (2016), Thus,.in order to seek the return of seized property, a defendant must file a motion within that sixty-day period. A criminal proceeding is concluded when the mandate issues from the appellate court on a direct appeal of a defendant’s judgment and sentence. See Davis v. State, 198 So.3d 1070, 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016); Breland v. State, 58 So.3d 326, 327 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Ward v. Dugger, 508 So.2d 778, 779 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). As more than sixty days have elapsed since the mandate issued in Monestime’s direct criminal appeal in 2010, the trial court’s order citing to the untimeliness of the motion pursuant to section 705.105 is correct. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 So. 3d 493, 2017 WL 1927728, 2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 6589, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monestime-v-state-fladistctapp-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack