In re Forfeiture of the Following Described Property: 1969 Chevrolet Camaro Bearing '75 Massachusetts License Tag 372-766 Vin 124379N511693
Cases that cite this one
6 later published cases cite this decision.
- Smith v. Hindery (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- Griffis v. State (Fla. 1978)
- Flam v. City of Miami Beach (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984)
- Sawyer v. Gable (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981)
- Mosley v. State Ex Rel. Broward Cty. (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
- Nichols v. State (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The State of Florida appeals from an order directing that Paul Costigliola’s automobile be returned to him.
Pursuant to § 943.43, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. the police seized Paul Costigliola’s automobile when he was arrested for possession of marijuana while in his automobile. Mr. Costigliola pled guilty to the charge and as a first offender was placed on probation. The police refused to return his automobile and the State petitioned for a rule to show cause why the car should not be forfeited pursuant to § 943.44, F.S. After hearing, the trial judge ordered the vehicle returned to Mr. Costigliola. The State appeals. We affirm.
Forfeitures are not favored in law or equity General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. State, 152 Fla. 297, 11 So.2d 482 (1943). Further, as forfeiture statutes
It is apparent from the transcript that through plea negotiations, the State accepted a guilty plea to posession of marijuana, a misdeameanor offense under § 893.13(1) (f), Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thus, we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in ordering return of Mr. Costigliola’s automobile to him.
Affirmed.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.