SANG VAN NGUYEN, 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.
In consolidated direct criminal appeals, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed Nguyen's burglary conviction but partially reversed and remanded on issues concerning probation revocation procedures, improper assessment of charges and costs, and the trial court's jurisdiction to enter a restitution order after notice of appeal was filed.
The court affirmed the burglary conviction, finding ample evidence to support the jury's verdict. The court affirmed the probation revocation but directed amendments on remand to reflect a violation finding and specify violated conditions. The court reversed the per-count assessment of charges, costs, and fees, requiring per-case assessment with statutory citations. The court vacated the restitution order entered after notice of appeal, though the trial court may conduct another hearing on remand.
[1] A trial court has jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing and enter an order regarding restitution only if the notice of appeal has not been filed.
[2] A trial court must enter an amended order reflecting that a defendant was found to have violated the terms of probation, rather than that the defendant pled nolo contende…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“We conclude that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict on the charge of principal to burglary of a dwelling in circuit court case number 93-873.”
The court's basis for affirming the burglary conviction without further discussion.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNguyen was convicted in circuit court case number 93-873 as principal to burglary of a dwelling. In a separate case (92-2525), his probation was revok…
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 Nolo Contendere Plea cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In these two direct criminal appeals, which we consolidate, appellant raises four issues: (1) whether, in circuit court case number 93-873, the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of principal to burglary of a dwelling; (2) whether the order revoking his probation in circuit court case number 92-2525 must be corrected to reflect that he was found to have violated his probation, rather than that he “pled nolo contendere,” and expressly to set forth the conditions of probation found to have been violated, as reflected in the hearing transcript; (3) whether the charges, costs and fees imposed in circuit court case number 92-2525 were improperly assessed on a per count, rather than on a per case, basis, and included costs for which no statutory authority was cited; and (4) whether, in circuit court case number 93-873, after a notice of appeal had been filed, the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing and to enter an order regarding restitution.
We conclude that there was ample evidence to support the jury’s verdict on the charge of principal to burglary of a dwelling in circuit court case number 93-873. Accordingly, we affirm appellant’s conviction without further discussion.
We also affirm the order revoking appellant’s probation, and again placing him on probation, in circuit court case number 92-2525. However, on remand, we direct the trial court to enter an amended order reflecting that appellant was found to have violated the terms of his probation, rather than that he “pled nolo contendere,” and expressly setting forth the condition or conditions found to have been violated, as reflected by the transcript of the hearing. We reverse the orders in that case imposing charges, costs and fees on a per count basis. On remand, the trial court is directed to impose the charges, costs and fees on a per case basis. Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). Also on remand, the trial court shall cite the statutory authority relied on as support for any award of charges, costs or fees.
Finally, while the trial court properly reserved jurisdiction to consider restitution in circuit court case number 93-873, the hearing was held, and the order entered, after a notice of appeal had been filed. Because the notice of appeal had been filed before the restitution hearing was held, the hearing and order entered thereafter are without effect. Skaggs v. State, 620 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). However, on remand, the trial court may conduct another hearing, and again impose restitution, should it elect to do so.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ. concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…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; Nguyen. Further, two costs were improperly imposed. A…
-
Kern v. State, 726 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)…ter restitution orders after Kern filed a notice of appeal, even though the court previously ordered restitution and properly .reserved jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing. Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The orders are therefore reversed and upon remand, if the trial court desires to impose additional restitution, it must conduct another hearing. In addition to the pre-crash value of the car, the state must present testimony of…
-
Woods v. State, 879 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…tution orders after Kern filed a notice of appeal, even though the court previously ordered restitution and properly reserved jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing.”) (citing Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)); see also Torres v. State, 812 So. 2d 610 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). Hence, the order awarding fees and requiring that they be paid as a condition of Woods’ probation must be reversed. Woods also contends that the trial court erred i…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Skaggs v. State, 620 So. 2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Rocker v. State, 640 So. 2d 163 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)