Miguel A/K/A Angel v. State
209 So. 3d 66
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Miguel pleaded guilty on March 8, 2016; his judgment became final April 7, 2016 because he did not appeal.
- He filed a postconviction motion for return of property (June 3, 2016) seeking items held by law enforcement/court.
- The trial court denied the motion as untimely and facially insufficient.
- The State conceded on appeal that the motion was timely under Fla. Stat. § 705.105(1) (60 days after conclusion of the proceeding), and that the court erred by dismissing the motion as facially insufficient without allowing amendment.
- The appellate court held the motion was timely and that the trial court must permit Miguel to amend a facially deficient motion for return of property before dismissing it; remanded with directions for leave to amend and further proceedings depending on the sufficiency of any amended motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of motion under §705.105(1) | Motion filed within 60 days of conclusion (filed June 3, 2016) | Motion untimely | Timely; June 6, 2016 deadline, so June 3 filing is timely |
| Proper procedure when motion is facially insufficient | Court should identify defects and allow leave to amend | Court denied as facially insufficient without leave | Court must allow leave to amend; dismissal without opportunity to amend was error |
| Standard for post-amendment disposition | If amended is facially sufficient, court must hold evidentiary hearing or attach record conclusively denying relief | If amended remains insufficient, court may enter final denial | If amended is sufficient, hold hearing or summarily deny with record attachments; if insufficient, final denial permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 198 So. 3d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (sixty-day period under §705.105 commences at conclusion of proceeding)
- Wilson v. State, 957 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (court must identify deficiencies and grant leave to amend facially insufficient motion for return of property)
- Arel v. State, 160 So. 3d 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (outlining elements of a facially sufficient motion for return of property)
- Holmes v. State, 997 So. 2d 1184 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008) (procedure for evidentiary hearing or summary denial when record conclusively shows no relief)
- Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (discussing facial sufficiency requirements and remedy of allowing amendment)