Background
Bradley Dorman was convicted of first-degree murder in Broward County Circuit Court. During his arrest, police seized property including money as evidence for trial. After his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, Dorman filed a timely motion for return of property within sixty days of the appellate mandate. His motion specifically described the property, alleged it belonged to him, alleged it was not fruit of criminal activity, and alleged it was not being held as evidence.
The trial court summarily denied Dorman’s motion by adopting the State’s response without attaching portions of the record or conducting an evidentiary hearing. Dorman appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth District reversed and remanded, with the State confessing error. The court held that when a criminal defendant files a facially sufficient motion for return of property within the statutory sixty-day period, the trial court cannot summarily deny it. Instead, the trial court must either attach portions of the record that conclusively refute the defendant’s claim or hold an evidentiary hearing.
The court found Dorman’s motion satisfied all procedural requirements: it was timely filed, specifically described the property, and alleged each of the four required elements established in Sanchez v. State (that the property belongs to the defendant, is not fruit of criminal activity, is not being held as evidence, and is specifically described). The trial court therefore erred by denying the motion summarily without following either of the two required procedures.
Key Takeaways
- A facially sufficient motion for return of seized property must meet four pleading requirements: specific description, allegation of ownership, allegation that property is not contraband, and allegation that property is not evidence.
- Trial courts lack discretion to summarily deny such motions; they must either attach refuting record portions or hold an evidentiary hearing.
- Motions for property return must be filed within sixty days after conclusion of the criminal proceeding, measured from when the appellate mandate issues.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces procedural protections for criminal defendants seeking return of property seized during investigation and trial. By requiring trial courts to either attach refuting record portions or conduct hearings, the court ensures defendants cannot be denied their property without meaningful opportunity to be heard—a fundamental due process protection.
The holding establishes clear guidelines for trial court procedure: facial sufficiency of the pleading triggers a mandatory requirement to either dispose of the motion with attached record evidence or provide a hearing, giving teeth to the statutory right to seek return of non-incriminating seized property.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.