W.E., 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.
W.E. challenges a trial court's amendment of his juvenile sentence to add community control approximately twenty days after the original judgment was entered. The appellate court reverses, holding that a trial court lacks authority to amend a legal sentence by adding additional sanctions after judgment has been rendered.
The trial court has no authority to amend a legal sentence to include additional sanctions after judgment has been entered. The original sanctions imposed were legal under statute, and the failure to order restitution did not make the sentence illegal or authorize amendment.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to amend a legal sentence to include additional sanctions after the judgment has been entered.
[2] The failure of a court to order restitution at the initial sentencing does not render the original sentence illegal.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“A trial court has no authority to amend a sentence to include additional sanctions when the original sentence is a legal one.”
Establishes the core legal principle governing the case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceW.E. appeared on juvenile petitions charging battery on a school board employee and two other battery counts. The trial court withheld adjudication an…
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 Community Control cases and more on FLexlaw
QUINCE, Judge.
W.E. challenges the trial court’s amendment of his original sentence to include community control. We reverse since the court has no authority to increase a legal sentence after the judgment has been entered.
W.E. appeared before the court on two juvenile petitions charging him with battery on a school board employee and two other counts of battery. The court withheld adjudication, ordered counseling, enrollment in the school placement program recommended by the school board, costs pursuant to section 960.20, Florida Statutes (1993), and a public defender lien. The court did not orally or in writing order any restitution or reserve ruling on the issue of restitution even though the state was on notice before the hearing that restitution was an issue.
Approximately twenty days after sentencing, a hearing was held on the state’s motion to amend the sentence. Although no written motion appears in the record, W.E.’s public defender attended the hearing along with W.E.’s mother. The state argued the sentence should be amended to include community control so that the victim’s $75.00 in unreimbursed medical bills could be ordered as a part of community control. The state further argued restitution could not be ordered except as a part of community control. W.E.’s counsel objected to amending the sentence to include community control and restitution. The court agreed with the state and placed W.E. on community control for an undetermined period and ordered restitution.
A trial court has no authority to amend a sentence to include additional sanctions when the original sentence is a legal one. Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla.1973); Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). The original sanctions imposed by the court in the instant case are authorized by statute and are, therefore, legal. § 39.052(3), Fla.Stat. (1994). See also State v. F.G., 630 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), affirmed, 638 So. 2d 515 (Fla.1994). The failure of a court to order restitution does not make the sanctions illegal or give the court the authority to amend the sentence. Cf. G.J.V. v. State, 637 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
Since the increase of W.E.’s sentence was error, we reverse with instructions to reinstate the original sentence.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Samuiel K. Messiha v. First Fla. Credit Union, 139 So. 3d 376 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)…Freedman v. Fraser Eng’g & Testing, Inc., 927 So. 2d 949, 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (affirming the final judgment enforcing and foreclosing the charging lien but remanding with instructions to recalculate the amount due); B.K.T., Inc. v. S. Fla. Bank, 658 So. 2d 1177, 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (remanding the ease for correction of the monetary judgment award). AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions. LEWIS, C.J., THOMAS and OSTERHAUS, JJ., concur.…
-
E.D.C. v. State, 936 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…of juvenile probation, and committed him to a level 4 program, even though no new affidavit of violation of probation was filed. The state concedes the double jeopardy violation. Cf. N.H. v. State, 723 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998); W.E. v. State, 658 So. 2d 1177 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). To revoke juvenile probation, the proper procedure must be followed. See generally Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.120(a). We therefore grant the petition and order that petitioner be released from commitment and reinstated to probation. This…
Authorities Cited
- Flazell Troupe v. The Honorable Ellen Morphonios Rowe & the Honorable Paul Baker, 283 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 1973)
- Hinton v. State, 446 So. 2d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- State v. F.G., 630 So. 2d 581 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)
- State v. F.G., 638 So. 2d 515 (Fla. 1994)
- G.J.V. v. State, 637 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)