C.B., 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.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to order restitution after sentencing if it failed to do so or reserve jurisdiction at the time of disposition.
C.B. pled guilty to battery, adjudication was withheld, and the court ordered juvenile arbitration without ordering restitution or reserving jurisdict…
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 Withheld Adjudication cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
C.B. appeals an order of restitution entered on April 6,1994. We reverse the order since the trial court failed to order restitution or reserve jurisdiction to do so at the time of the disposition order. On December 3, 1993, C.B. pled guilty to battery in violation of section 784.03, Florida Statutes (1991). Thereafter, on December 8, 1993, the court withheld adjudication and ordered the juvenile to enter and complete juvenile arbitration. The court did not order restitution or reserve jurisdiction to do so. Almost four months later, the court held a restitution hearing where it assessed $127.47 in restitution. Subsection 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes (1993), authorizes the trial court to order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused by the defendant’s offense. An order of restitution stating the amount or reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount at a later date should be entered at sentencing. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993). Here the trial court did not order restitution. When a court fails to order restitution at sentencing, any subsequent restitution order is invalid because the court lacks jurisdiction. C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); J.C. v. State, 632 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Since the court did not order restitution at sentencing, it could not later modify the sentence to include restitution. We reverse and vacate the order of restitution. Our decision moots the appellant’s other issue.
FRANK, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bunch v. State, 745 So. 2d 400 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…6). In the instant case, the trial court properly exercised its jurisdiction in entering an order of restitution only three days after the date on which appellant was sentenced, well within the sixty day time period of Rule 3.800. Cf. C.B. v. State, 647 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)(where the trial court did not order restitution or reserve jurisdiction to do so, and held a restitution hearing some four months later, the trial court could not modify its sentencing order to include restitution). Bunch also co…
-
T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…Accordingly, we vacate the orders of restitution because 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…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- Mercuri v. State, 632 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)