ARTHUR LEE WEAVER, APPELLANT,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend a sentence by increasing restitution more than sixty days after the original sentencing.
The defendant pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to prison and restitution. The state later moved to increase the restitution amount, which the…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Jurisdiction To Modify Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The defendant, Arthur Lee Weaver, appeals from an amended sentencing order. We reverse.
Pursuant to the defendant’s plea of nolo contendere, the trial court sentenced the defendant to 364 days in prison and ordered him to pay $500.00 to the victim as restitution. This sentence was announced on June 7, 1990. On August 16, 1990, the state orally moved to amend the restitution amount to $4,254.20 because the victim was not present at the initial sentencing hearing and the actual damages were more than those originally imposed. Over the defendant’s objection, the trial court granted the state’s motion and raised the amount of restitution to $4,254.80.
We agree with the defendant that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose additional restitution seventy days after the original restitution amount was ordered. Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (1989), gives the trial court jurisdiction to reduce or modify a legal sentence within sixty days of imposition. Since more than sixty days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing, the trial court’s jurisdiction to modify the defendant’s sentence had elapsed. See McLaughlin v. State, 573 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s order rendered August 16, 1990, increasing the amount of restitution.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…ders of restitution within 60 days resulted in its loss of jurisdiction, and we therefore vacate the restitution orders. See Boykin v. State, 617 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Weaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993). We reject the state’s argument that the 60 day period only begins to run from the filing of the sentence rather than from…
-
Brock v. State, 604 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)…rial court to have had the jurisdiction to subsequently order appellant to pay restitution. The failure to impose restitution, however, does not render a sentence illegal. State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). See also Weaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991). Rather, the failure to impose restitution renders the sentence incomplete and subject to modification within sixty days. See Butz. Thus, the court’s initial failure to order restitution did not result in an illegal sentence and,…
-
Denissa Bowling v. State, 688 So. 2d 947 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…see also McLemore v. State, 638 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that court lost jurisdiction to impose restitution payments where it attempted to add that condition more than 60 days after the original sentence was imposed); Weaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (holding trial court without jurisdiction to impose additional restitution because more than 60 days had passed between the sentencing hearing and the second restitution hearing). The time for arguing the third alleged violation…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- McLAUGHLIN v. State, 573 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)
- State v. Kellams, 573 So. 2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991)