Miguel A/K/A Angel v. State

Angel M. Miguel appeals from the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion for return of property. While we agree that the motion was facially insufficient, 1 we hold that the trial court erred in denying the motion without granting Miguel an opportunity to amend the motion to set forth a facially sufficient claim.

The trial court denied the motion as both untimely and facially insufficient. On appeal, the State properly concedes that the motion was timely. See § 705.105(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (providing that “[t]itle to unclaimed evidence or unclaimed tangible personal property…