From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Thomas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 12, 2008
997 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Opinion

No. 1D08-1217.

December 12, 2008.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. L.P. Haddock, Judge.

Christopher Thomas, pro se, Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Special Counsel, Criminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.


Appellant, Christopher Thomas, appeals an order striking his motion for the return of property. Appellant is correct that the trial court erred in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion given that trial courts have the inherent authority to direct the return of property seized from a criminal defendant if that property is no longer needed as evidence against him or her. See Coon v. State, 585 So.2d 1079, 1080 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, we affirm on the basis of the "tipsy coachman" doctrine given that Appellant's motion was facially insufficient. See McCants v. State, 671 So.2d 221, 221 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also Justice v. State, 944 So.2d 538, 539 (Fla., 2d DCA 2006).

AFFIRMED.

BARFIELD, DAVIS, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Thomas v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Dec 12, 2008
997 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)
Case details for

Thomas v. State

Case Details

Full title:Christopher THOMAS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Dec 12, 2008

Citations

997 So. 2d 476 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

Citing Cases

Horn v. State

Rather, the State must show a continuing need for the property. Id. ; Thomas v. State , 997 So. 2d 476 (Fla.…

Bailey v. State

Rather the State must show a continuing need for the property. Thomas v. State, 997 So.2d 476 (Fla. 1st DCA…