Summary
reversing and remanding the order summarily denying the appellant's motion to return property and reasoning that “[b]ecause the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing”
Summary of this case from Nofsinger v. StateOpinion
No. 1D12–1812.
2013-09-23
Herbert J.T. WILSON, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Kevin A. Blazs, Judge. Herbert J.T. Wilson, II, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County. Kevin A. Blazs, Judge.
Herbert J.T. Wilson, II, pro se, Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Jennifer J. Moore, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Herbert J.T. Wilson, II, appeals an order summarily denying his Motion to Return Property to Defendant. Because the motion was facially sufficient, the trial court was required to either conclusively refute the allegations or hold an evidentiary hearing. See Bailey v. State, 93 So.3d 518, 519 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Jones v. State, 42 So.3d 874, 875 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Accordingly, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED and REMANDED.