John O. Riley v. State

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
JOHN O. RILEY,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D15-4037
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November 3, 2017
Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
Randell H. Rowe, lll, Judge.
William Douglas Stanford, Jr., St.
Augustine, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney
General, Tallahassee, and Lori N.
Hagan, Assistant Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.
COHEN, C.J.
Appellant John Riley appeals an order summarily denying his motion for return of
personal property. Appellant sought the return of a vehicle and other personal property
seized upon his arrest. We reverse.
Motions for return of personal property are “governed by procedures similar to
those used in postconviction proceedings.” Shade v. State, 55 So. 3d 722, 723 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2011) (quoting Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780, 783 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)). A facially
sufficient motion alleges that: (1) the movant owns the property; (2) the property is not the
fruit of criminal activity; and (3) the State is not holding the property as evidence. Scott v.
State, 922 So. 2d 1024, 1026 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006). It also specifically identifies the
property. Id. Appellant’s motion was facially sufficient in this case; thus, the trial court was
required to hold an evidentiary hearing or attach records conclusively demonstrating that
Appellant was entitled to no relief. Bolden, 875 So. 2d at 782–83.
The State disputes that Appellant owns the subject property, namely the vehicle
listed in Appellant’s motion. However, the records submitted by the State, and relied on
by the trial court, do not conclusively demonstrate that Appellant has no ownership or
possessory interest in the property. Therefore, the trial court erred in summarily denying
the motion. On remand, the trial court must attach records conclusively refuting
Appellant’s claim to the property or hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion. “[I]f the
State is ‘unable to connect the items to specific criminal activity, and no one else can be
identified who can demonstrate a superior possessory interest in the property, it should
be returned to [Appellant] or to such person(s) as he may designate.’” Id. at 783 (quoting
Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660, 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)).
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
2