Smith v. State
230 So. 3d 57
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Delmer Smith III was convicted in Sarasota County of armed home-invasion robbery and armed kidnapping and sentenced to concurrent life terms.
- Smith filed successive motions for return of property, attaching a five‑page list of items he sought plus property receipts from the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) and Venice Police Department (VPD).
- Smith’s list matched item numbers from the receipts and grouped items by type (watches, iPods, electronics, computers, jewelry); he asserted a good‑faith effort to inventory his property.
- The State responded that multiple agencies seized hundreds of items across multiple case numbers and that Smith’s motion failed to identify precisely which items and where they are located (pointing to apparent discrepancies in receipt item numbers).
- The trial court originally dismissed the motion without prejudice, then—after the appellate court relinquished jurisdiction so the court could dismiss with prejudice—dismissed the motion with prejudice for lack of specificity.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding Smith’s motion was facially sufficient and that disputes about current possession/location of items should be resolved at an evidentiary hearing rather than by summary dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smith’s motion for return of property was facially sufficient | Smith argued his itemized list and receipts, with item numbers and descriptions, met the requirement to specifically identify his property | State argued the motion failed to identify precisely which items and their current locations given multiple agencies and hundreds of items; receipts appeared inconsistent | Held: Motion was facially sufficient; reversal of summary dismissal; remand for further proceedings (evidentiary hearing if needed) |
| Whether attachments (receipts) must show current custody agency to be sufficient | Smith relied on receipts from SCSO and VPD showing item numbers, descriptions, and locations when issued | State claimed receipts lacked clear agency identification for some entries and thus could not establish which agency currently holds items | Held: Receipts were sufficiently from SCSO and VPD and identified locations/dates; uncertainty about current custody goes to evidentiary hearing, not facial sufficiency |
| Whether defendant must prove property is not evidence or fruit of crime at the pleading stage | Smith alleged property was his, not fruit of criminal activity, and not held as evidence | State implied inability to verify whether items had been introduced as trial evidence or remained in custody | Held: Allegations satisfied pleading requirement (Durain standard); if disputed, the State may respond or court may hold hearing |
| Proper remedy for disputed facts about possession/location | Smith sought return or at least an adjudication based on his inventory | State urged dismissal for failure to meet burden of specificity and avoid having to identify items across agencies | Held: Summary dismissal was improper where material factual disputes remain; remand for response or evidentiary hearing per Bolden/Durain framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Almodovar v. State, 74 So. 3d 1140 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (dismissal without prejudice not appealable)
- Brown v. State, 36 So. 3d 186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (procedural rules on reviewability of dismissals)
- Durain v. State, 765 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (motion must allege property is defendant’s, not fruit of crime, not held as evidence)
- Bolden v. State, 875 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (if facially sufficient, trial court may order State to respond or hold evidentiary hearing)
- Eight Hundred, Inc. v. State, 895 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (vague description can still be sufficient to satisfy motion requirements)
- Coon v. State, 585 So. 2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (similar standard for sufficiency of description in return‑of‑property motions)
- Stone v. State, 630 So. 2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (possession/location disputes resolved at evidentiary hearing)
- Brown v. State, 613 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993) (denial of return motion when State disclaims knowledge should not be summary disposition when facts disputed)