Third District Court of Appeal
State of Florida
Opinion filed November 9, 2016.
________________
No. 3D16-906
Lower Tribunal No. 04-753B
________________
John J. Wilson, Jr.,
Petitioner,
vs.
The State of Florida,
Respondent.
A Case of Original Jurisdiction — Petition for Belated Appeal.
John J. Wilson, Jr., in proper person.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.
Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Order on Motion for Clarification of Order Dismissing Petition Seeking
Belated Appeal
While not entirely clear from the limited record petitioner John J. Wilson, Jr.
has provided us, it appears that Wilson is seeking to recover from Miami-Dade
County the sum of $8,520 impounded by police in January of 2004 when Wilson
and his codefendant John D’Ambro were arrested. Wilson was charged with
trafficking cocaine, conspiracy to traffic cocaine and money laundering (criminal
case number F04-753B).
It appears that forfeiture proceedings were initiated against the impounded
funds in civil forfeiture case number 04-03992-CA-23 and, on May 18, 2004, a
final judgment forfeiting those funds to the Miami-Dade Police Department Law
Enforcement Trust Fund was entered.
The record reflects that some eight years later, on or about June 8, 2012,
Wilson was acquitted of the charges in criminal case number F04-753B. On June
19, 2012, Wilson filed a motion in his criminal case for return of property
(presumably seeking the return of the $8,520 that was the subject of the judgment
in the forfeiture case).1 The judgment of acquittal was entered on July 3, 2012, and,
shortly thereafter, the trial court in the criminal case entered a July 5, 2012 order
1 A copy of this motion is not in the record provided by Wilson.
2
presumably granting Wilson’s June 19, 2012 motion seeking the return of his
property.2
More than two years later, on December 8, 2014, Miami-Dade County filed
a motion in criminal case number F04-753B seeking to vacate the trial court’s July
5, 2012 order.3 The record does not reflect whether the trial court ever ruled on this
motion.
In April of 2016, Wilson filed a petition with this Court titled “Petition for
Belated Appeal from Civil Forfeiture,” presumably seeking leave to file a belated
appeal of an unidentified trial court order entered in criminal case number F04-
753B denying him recovery. In his petition, Wilson asserted, among other things,
that the May 2004 final judgment in the civil forfeiture case was entered without
notice to him, and without an opportunity to establish that the funds belonged to
him rather than to his codefendant John D’Ambro. On April 25, 2016, we entered
an order dismissing the petition “without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to
pursue his claim to the funds in the circuit court (including the right to seek
enforcement in that court of any prior order upholding petitioner’s claim to the
subject funds).”
2 A copy of this order is not in the record provided by Wilson.
3 Despite the filing of this motion in Wilson’s criminal case, this motion cites, as
its basis, rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.
3
While unclear from the record, it appears Wilson, armed with our April
2016 order, filed a motion in the criminal case seeking appointment of counsel to
assist Wilson in recovering the forfeiture funds. The record then reflects that on
July 13, 2016, the trial court in the criminal case entered an order denying
Wilson’s motion seeking the appointment of counsel to pursue Wilson’s claim for
the funds. In that handwritten order, the trial court states: “[t]he Defendant’s issue
regarding his request for return of property is moot as any property and/or money
that was collected as evidence in this case was forfeited in a civil forfeiture
proceeding.”
While the relief Wilson seeks from this Court is not exactly clear, Wilson
now has filed with this Court what can only be characterized as a motion to clarify
our April 2016 order that dismissed Wilson’s petition. In his October 17, 2016
filing, Wilson asserts, among other things, that he has been denied access to courts
and that the circuit court has “flagrantly violated this order.” We treat Wilson’s
October 17, 2016 filing as a motion for clarification and grant same.
It appears from the record that the property Wilson is seeking to claim in
criminal case number F04-753B was the subject of a civil forfeiture case (case
number 04-03992-CA-23), which resulted in a final judgment of forfeiture
rendered on May 8, 2004. The record does not reflect whether the criminal court,
in entering the July 5, 2012 order some eight years later, had the benefit of this
4
final judgment. By the time the criminal court entered its July 13, 2016 order
denying Wilson’s motion seeking appointment of counsel, however, the criminal
court obviously had become aware of this final judgment and referenced the same
in that July 13, 2016 order.
Our April 25, 2016 dismissal order merely denied the relief requested by
Wilson (i.e., to file a belated appeal of some unidentified order entered in the
criminal case). Our order specified that this Court’s dismissal of the petition was
without prejudice to Wilson attempting to claim the funds by challenging the May
2004 final judgment in the civil forfeiture case number 04-03992-CA-23. Our
order indicated that any such challenge should be filed in that civil forfeiture case,
rather than by continued filings in Wilson’s criminal case (F04-753B). Our order
obviously did not, and we do not now, comment or opine on the merits of any such
challenge or on the enforceability or validity of the July 5, 2012 order entered in
the criminal case.
To the extent that Wilson’s October 17, 2016 filing requests any additional
relief from this Court, we deny such request.
5