From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McCants v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 4, 1996
671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Summary

holding where motion for return of property was "facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court's inherent authority to effectuate the return of such property," summary denial was "preclud[ed]"

Summary of this case from Davidson v. State

Opinion

No. 95-864.

April 4, 1996.

An appeal from Circuit Court for Jackson County. John Roberts, Judge.

Marcus L. McCants, Crestview, Pro Se.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, and James W. Rogers, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


The appellant challenges an order by which a motion for the return of property was summarily denied. The appellant alleged that the property was seized in connection with criminal charges, and that the property is no longer needed as evidence since the criminal case has proceeded to a final resolution on appeal. The motion is facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court's inherent authority to effectuate the return of such property, thus precluding summary denial. E.g., Coon v. State, 585 So.2d 1079 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Moore v. State, 533 So.2d 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). The appealed order is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded.

ALLEN, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

McCants v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 4, 1996
671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

holding where motion for return of property was "facially sufficient to invoke the criminal court's inherent authority to effectuate the return of such property," summary denial was "preclud[ed]"

Summary of this case from Davidson v. State
Case details for

McCants v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARCUS L. McCANTS, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Apr 4, 1996

Citations

671 So. 2d 221 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1996)

Citing Cases

McKeever v. State

The trial court summarily denied relief without any explanation for its action. Because the motion was…

Thomas v. State

However, we affirm on the basis of the "tipsy coachman" doctrine given that Appellant's motion was facially…