PAUL A. SCOTT, 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.
Trial court lost jurisdiction to impose restitution orders because they were entered more than 60 days after sentencing, violating Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
A trial court loses jurisdiction to impose restitution orders if they are not entered within 60 days of sentencing, and the 60-day period runs from the date of sentencing, not from the filing of the sentence.
[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to impose restitution orders if they are not entered within 60 days of sentencing, with the 60-day period running from the date of senten…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceScott pled guilty to attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault, and false imprisonment. The plea agreement contained no restitution provision,…
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 Attempted First Degree Murder cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
The appellant, Paul Scott, pled guilty to attempted first degree murder, aggravated assault and false imprisonment. The plea agreement made no reference to restitution. At the sentencing hearing on November 23, 1992, the court failed to include any restitution. Subsequently, a restitution hearing was held on January 25, 1993. At that time, over objection by defense counsel, the trial court entered two restitution orders, one awarding $1,939.17 to the victims, and the second awarding $14,574.50 to Hu-mana Health Care. On appeal, Scott contends these orders should be reversed because they were entered more than sixty days after sentencing. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b). We agree with the defendant that the failure of the trial court to impose the orders 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 the date of its imposition. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b).
Accordingly, this cause is remanded with instructions to strike the orders of restitution.
REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS
W. SHARP and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L'Heureux v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…ned beyond the sixty-day window. See Sanderson, 625 So. 2d at 473; Selwyn, 903 So. 2d at 362. Notably, the date of sentencing which starts the sixty-day clock is the date the sentence was imposed, not the date the sentence was filed. Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Although a trial court may impose restitution within sixty days of sentencing, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to do so while a direct appeal is pending. See Jenkins v. State, 954 So. 2d 738, 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Colso…
-
Consuela Michelle McLEMORE v. State, 638 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…d in rule 3.800(b). Id. at 472-73. Other recent cases have also dealt with the issue of whether restitution may be imposed more than sixty days after an original sentencing order. Parker v. State, 634 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). In each of these cases, the appellate court stated that a failure of the trial court to impose the orders of restitution within 60 days of the original sentences resulted in the trial court’s loss of [*612] jurisdiction to make…
-
T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…ecause restitution was not imposed and ordered at the disposition hearing or within sixty days thereafter. Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.800(b); C.B.L. v. State, 682 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); C.B. v. State, 647 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Campbell, 614 So. 2d at 600 (reversing restitution order imposed more than 60 days after sentencing because trial court’s statement “I will reserve jurisdiction on the issue of restitution” constituted merely a decision to reser…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Butz, 568 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Weaver v. State, 588 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)
- Algenone Flagg v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Boykin v. State, 617 So. 2d 823 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)