MARY MARCINEK, 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 held that once a trial court unequivocally announces a final decision, it loses jurisdiction to enter a subsequent order that contradicts the announced decision.
The trial court announced Appellant's probation was terminated, subject to a restitution order to be prepared by the state. The state failed to submit…
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 Restitution Order cases and more on FLexlaw
STONE, Judge.
We reverse an order modifying probation entered several months after the trial court had announced unconditionally that Appellant’s probation was terminated, subject only to receipt of a proposed written restitution order to be prepared by the state. The amount of restitution was not in dispute.
The state failed to submit the written order out of concern for victim objections to the court’s decision. However, the question of obtaining victim consent to the termination of probation was not raised prior to the court’s decision to terminate. The record is clear that the court’s only concern in ordering termination was the precise wording of the restitution order which the assistant state attorney agreed to prepare and submit incidental to the termination to which the attorney also agreed.
Once a final decision has been announced unequivocally, the court lacks jurisdiction to retract it by entering a subsequent written order that is not in compliance with the orally announced final order. See, e.g., Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). See also Drumwright v. State, 572 So. 2d 1029, 1031 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Flowers v. State, 351 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the entry of such order(s) as will effectuate the trial court’s prior decision to terminate Appellant’s probation.
GLICKSTEIN and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rowland v. State, 548 So. 2d 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Hutchins v. McCLUNG, 572 So. 2d 1029 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- Knoblock v. Paree W. Knoblock, 351 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Burtless v. Pallero, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Harrington v. State, 570 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)