C.W., A CHILD, 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.
The court reversed a restitution order of $608 entered on September 13, 1993, holding that the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify restitution after the state failed to object within thirty days of the initial restitution order setting the amount at zero on June 31, 1993.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution amount because the state failed to object within the thirty-day period specified in the June 31, 1993 order. Once that period expired without objection, restitution was finally and permanently set at zero, and the court lost jurisdiction to change it.
[1] A court loses jurisdiction to set a restitution amount after the expiration of a thirty-day period for objections, absent timely objection.
[2] Failure to raise a jurisdictional issue constitutes fundamental error and may be raised at any time.
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“since the state failed to object within the thirty-day limit, the court lost jurisdiction of the matter, and restitution was finally and permanently set at zero.”
The core holding establishing that the trial court lost jurisdiction to modify the restitution amount after the state failed to timely object.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn June 15, 1993, the trial court ordered C.W. to pay reasonable restitution, with the amount to be determined based on an HRS counselor's recommendat…
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 Fundamental Error cases and more on FLexlaw
CAMPBELL, Judge.
Appellant, C.W., maintains that the trial court was without jurisdiction to set his restitution amount at $608 on September 13, 1993, after having set it at zero on June 31, 1993, more than thirty days before. We agree and reverse the restitution award.
The record reveals as follows:
June 15, 1993 Court orders C.W. to pay reasonable restitution, the court to set the amount based on the HRS counsel-or’s recommendation, which was to be filed in fifteen days.
June 31, 1993 Restitution order entered, stating that HRS counselor had recommended zero restitution, and if no objections were filed within thirty days, C.W. “shall pay” zero restitution.
August 30, 1993 State files memorandum addressed to clerk’s office stating that restitution hearing is set for September 8, 1993, and requesting notices be sent.
September 13,1993 Court orders C.W. or parents to pay $608 in restitution.
Although both appellant and the state argue a great deal of law concerning the sixty-day limit for setting the amount of restitution, this case may be resolved much more easily. On June 15, 1993, the court ordered C.W. to pay a reasonable amount of restitution, the amount to be determined following reference to the HRS counselor’s recommendation. This is the “restitution order.” The amount of restitution was set by the June 31,1993 order which stated that the amount was to be zero unless someone objected within thirty days. Quite simply, since the state failed to object within the thirty-day limit, the court lost jurisdiction of the matter, and restitution was finally and permanently set at zero. See J.C. v. State, 632 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). For this reason, the State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993), exception to the sixty-day rule does not apply.
Although the state argues that C.W. waived the jurisdictional argument for failing to raise it below, it is axiomatic that failure to raise a jurisdictional issue is fundamental error and may be raised at any time. State v. Booker, 497 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Solomon v. State, 341 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977).
Our disposition of this issue moots appellant’s other issues. We reverse and vacate the order of restitution.
RYDER, A.C.J., and THREADGILL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Elvin Otis Morgan v. State, 757 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…). We note that because the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, see Hoffman v. State, 729 So. 2d 421 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), Morgan could raise this defect at any time. See Tatum v. State, 736 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The trial court had no jurisdiction to impose Morgan’s new terms of community control and probation- on February 17, 1998. Consequently, we must vacate the prison sentence that Morgan is currently serving because it is predicate…
-
Woods v. State, 879 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…jurisdiction....”); Otero v. State, 793 So. 2d 1115 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001); Winter v. State, 781 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 1st DCA), review denied, 799 So. 2d 219 (Fla.2001); Harrell v. State, 721 So. 2d 1185, 1186-87 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (citing C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28, 29 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Booker v. State, 497 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986); Page v. State, 376 So. 2d 901, 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979); Wesley v. State, 375 So. 2d 1093, 1094 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Waters v. State, 354 So. 2d 1277, 1278 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978);…
-
State v. Vesquez, 755 So. 2d 674 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…here a court lacks the jurisdiction to take the action under attack on appeal, the case is one involving fundamental error, so that no objection is required in the trial court. See Wright v. Scott, 658 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Young v. State, 438 So. 2d 998 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). REVERSED. STONE, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- Solomon v. State, 341 So. 2d 537 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- Booker v. State, 497 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Mercuri v. State, 632 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)