Ooms v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Ooms v. State

138 So. 3d 565, 2014 WL 1779817, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6471

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 5, 2014

DocketNo. 1D13-3539

StatusPublished

This text of 138 So. 3d 565 (Ooms 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

Ooms v. State, 138 So. 3d 565, 2014 WL 1779817, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6471 (Fla. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robertus F. Ooms, appeals an order summarily denying his motion for return of property. The State properly concedes that because the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. See Wilson v. State, 121 So.3d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the order summarily denying the appellant’s motion to return property and reasoning that “[b]ecause the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing”); Dawson v. State, 104 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion for return of property because the trial court erred by failing to attach portions of the record that conclusively refuted her claim); West v. State, 35 So.3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion to return seized property because “[t]he postconviction court erred in basing its denial of the motion on the factual representations of an attorney for the sheriffs department”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion for return of property and remand the case to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Robertus F. Ooms, appeals an order summarily denying his motion for return of property. The State properly concedes that because the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing. See Wilson v. State, 121 So.3d 1175, 1175 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the order summarily denying the appellant’s motion to return property and reasoning that “[b]ecause the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing”); Dawson v. State, 104 So.3d 1290, 1291 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion for return of property because the trial court erred by failing to attach portions of the record that conclusively refuted her claim); West v. State, 35 So.3d 175, 176 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing and remanding the summary denial of the appellant’s motion to return seized property because “[t]he postconviction court erred in basing its denial of the motion on the factual representations of an attorney for the sheriffs department”). Accordingly, we reverse the order denying Appellant’s motion for return of property and remand the case to the trial court with directions to either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute Appellant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.

REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.

LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 So. 3d 565, 2014 WL 1779817, 2014 Fla. App. LEXIS 6471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ooms-v-state-fladistctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack