JOSEPH DONALD PARKER, JR., 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.
Parker challenges his sentence, arguing that restitution imposed on March 16, 1993 violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) because it was ordered more than 60 days after the original sentencing on December 15, 1992, and that the Bay County Work Program fee was not authorized by statute. The court reversed the restitution order for lack of jurisdiction but declined to address the fee issue due to lack of appellate jurisdiction.
The court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution on March 16, 1993 because it exceeded the 60-day period under Rule 3.800(b). The restitution order is reversed. The court declined to address the Bay County Work Program fee issue due to lack of appellate jurisdiction because the appeal was filed more than 30 days after the judgment.
[1] An appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a challenge to a sentence if the appeal is filed more than thirty days after the judgment and original sentence.
[2] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose restitution more than sixty days after the original sentencing.
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“The record does not support the conclusion that restitution was ordered before March 16, 1993. Since that date is more than sixty days from the original sentencing on December 15, 1992, the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose restitution.”
Establishes the core holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution beyond the 60-day window.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParker pleaded nolo contendere on June 19, 1992 to sexual battery, conditioned on receiving community control. On December 15, 1992, he was sentenced …
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 Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(B) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Donald Parker [Parker] challenges his sentence, but not the underlying conviction. He argues that restitution was imposed more than sixty days after the original sentencing in violation of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) and that the Bay County Work Program fee which the original sentence required him to pay is not authorized by statute.
We conclude that we are without jurisdiction to address Parker’s contentions regarding the Bay County Work Program fee imposed on December 15, 1992 because Parker filed this appeal on March 30,1993, more than thirty days after the judgment and original sentence. Fla.R.App.P. 9.140(b)(2). We agree, however, that the effort to amend the original sentence was ineffectual.
On June 19, 1992, Parker pleaded nolo contendere to a charge of sexual battery and signed a written plea, waiver, and consent form, conditioned on his receiving a eommu- nity control sentence. The court accepted the plea and sentenced Parker on December 15, 1992, to community control for two years followed by probation for thirteen years with several conditions, which included paying a Bay County Work Program fee of $250. Restitution was not imposed either as a condition of probation or otherwise at this hearing.
A restitution hearing was scheduled for January 5, 1993. No transcript of the proceeding scheduled for January 5, 1993 is in the record on appeal, and the State advised that none is available. The clerk’s minutes indicate that the January 5,1993 hearing was continued until March 16, 1993. On March 16, 1993, the trial judge ordered the defendant to pay restitution for workers’ compensation benefits paid to the victim and set the amount at $11,169.00.
The State asks us to infer that restitution was ordered at the January 5, 1993 hearing. At the March 16, 1993 hearing, the trial judge asked, “What amount are you asking for, Mr. [Prosecutor]?” If restitution had not already been imposed, the court would have inquired whether the State sought imposition of restitution, the State argues. We disagree. A sentence or sentencing term should not be inferred from such a record. See King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992).
The record does not support the conclusion that restitution was ordered before March 16, 1993. Since that date is more than sixty days from the original sentencing on December 15, 1992, the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose restitution. State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993); Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). The restitution order is REVERSED.
BARFIELD, WOLF and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Consuela Michelle McLEMORE v. State, 638 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)…er date runs beyond the sixty day period contemplated 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 th…
-
Davis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1389 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…a. R.Crim. P. 3.111(e). Appellant shall be granted a belated appeal providing him with 30 days from the date appellate counsel is appointed in which to file the proper notice. See Weisman v. State, 651 So. 2d 148 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Parker v. State, 634 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). Reversed; remanded with instructions.…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. Martin, 577 So. 2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)