ANGELA SKAGGS, A/K/A ANGELA DAWN SKAGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
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.
Angela Skaggs appeals her DUI manslaughter conviction, challenging expert witness qualifications, sufficiency of evidence, and restitution ordered 63 days after sentencing. The court affirms the conviction and evidentiary rulings but reverses the restitution order because the trial court lost jurisdiction when the notice of appeal was filed.
While the trial court's pronouncement to reserve judgment on restitution was sufficiently clear, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because the filing of the notice of appeal in open court at the conclusion of the sentencing hearing divested the trial court of jurisdiction to enter further orders.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enter further orders after a notice of appeal is filed in open court.
[2] A trial court's pronouncement reserving jurisdiction to determine restitution is sufficient if the intent to reserve jurisdiction is satisfactorily stated.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because the notice of appeal was filed in open court at the termination of the sentencing hearing in July, the trial court at that time lost jurisdiction to enter any further order.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that filing a notice of appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to enter subsequent orders, regardless of any prior reservation of jurisdiction.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSkaggs was convicted of DUI manslaughter. At the July 1992 sentencing hearing, the state requested restitution for costs of prosecution. The trial cou…
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 Restitution Order cases and more on FLexlaw
DANAHY, Acting Chief Judge.
From her conviction and sentence for DUI manslaughter, the appellant claims error surrounding the qualifications of the experts who testified at trial as well as the scope of their testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the restitution ordered as part of her sentence. The restitution order was entered more than sixty days after sentencing. We find no error in the two evidentiary issues raised. See Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 381 So. 2d 229, 230 (Fla.1980); Haas v. State, 567 So. 2d 966, 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved, 597 So. 2d 770 (Fla.1992). We do, however, find that the trial court was without jurisdiction to order restitution and thus reverse on that issue alone.
At the sentencing hearing held in July 1992 the state attorney requested the trial court to order the appellant to pay the state’s cost of prosecution as restitution. Defense counsel requested a hearing on the matter. The trial court then stated: “I’ll reserve for 60 days. Restitution will be determined at that time. And if ordered, will be a condition of your supervision.” A notice of appeal was then filed in open court. In September, some sixty-three days later, the restitution hearing was held and the trial court ordered the defendant to pay the state’s costs of prosecution pursuant to section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1991).
The appellant contends that the trial court’s pronouncement was insufficient to reserve jurisdiction to impose costs of prosecution. We disagree. Although the trial court later characterized the quoted language as “equivocal,” at the restitution hearing in September the trial court found, and we agree, that the intention to reserve jurisdiction was satisfactorily stated. This however, does not dispose of the issue. Because the notice of appeal was filed in open court at the termination of the sentencing hearing in July, the trial court at that time lost jurisdiction to enter any further order. See Gatlin v. State, 618 So. 2d ^765 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We, therefore, affirm the conviction but reverse the order imposing costs of prosecution because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so. On remand the trial court may reimpose those costs since it had satisfactorily reserved jurisdiction to do so. Gatlin.
THREADGILL and BLUE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…urisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution after a notice of appeal has been filed, even though the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount. Skaggs v. State, 620 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Consequently, we reverse the order setting the amount of restitution. [*722] On remand, the trial court may conduct another hearing and again impose restitution. See Skaggs; N…
-
Baldwin v. State, 753 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…after the judgment and sentence on appeal was rendered. The amended sentence added a three-year minimum mandatory sentence for the use of a firearm. We agree that the trial court lost jurisdiction when Baldwin filed his appeal. See Skaggs v. State, 620 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). Accordingly, we strike the amended sentence entered on October 9, 1998, and reinstate the sentence of May 14,1998. Affirmed in part; reversed in part. BLUE and GREEN, JJ., Concur.…
-
Sang Van Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elliott Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R. Co., 381 So. 2d 229 (Fla. 1980)
- Fuse v. State, 384 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Haas v. State, 597 So. 2d 770 (Fla. 1992)
- Dep't OF Corr. v. Cantave, 567 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Haas v. State, 567 So. 2d 966 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)