T.W.L., 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 First District Court of Appeal vacated restitution orders entered more than 60 days after the disposition hearing, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by merely reserving jurisdiction to determine restitution rather than imposing and ordering restitution at the disposition hearing or within the 60-day deadline.
The restitution orders must be vacated because they were not imposed and ordered at the disposition hearing or within 60 days thereafter. Merely reserving jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution does not constitute an imposition of restitution at the disposition hearing.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by imposing restitution orders more than sixty days after a disposition hearing, absent a timely ruling or reservation of jurisdiction…
[2] A trial court's statement reserving jurisdiction on the issue of restitution, without explicitly ordering or imposing restitution at the disposition hearing, does not con…
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“Absent an adequate showing, on the record, of the trial court's ordering or imposing restitution at the disposition hearing, we find no lawful basis for the trial court's subsequent finding at the restitution hearing that it had ordered or imposed restitution.”
Establishes the core principle that restitution must be ordered at the disposition hearing; mere reservation of jurisdiction to determine the amount is insufficient.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAt the April 1995 disposition hearing, the trial court agreed to defense counsel's request to reserve jurisdiction concerning restitution in the appel…
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 Abuse Of Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges orders of restitution entered against him, over defense counsel’s objection, more than sixty days after his disposition hearing. Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
The state responds that the trial court made a timely ruling to order restitution at the April 1995 disposition hearing and reserved jurisdiction merely to determine the amount of restitution, a procedure approved in Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993), State v. M.C., 666 So. 2d 877 (Fla.1995) (approving holding that where trial court merely reserved jurisdiction on question of restitution at hearing and ordered restitution more than 60 days later, orders of restitution had to be reversed), and State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471, 472-73 (Fla.1993). After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing and ordering restitution and entering the restitution orders in December 1995, ie., more than sixty days after the disposition hearing.
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 restitution” constituted merely a decision to reserve jurisdiction to determine whether to impose restitution, rather than a ruling ordering or imposing restitution); King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (prosecutor’s request, “Your Honor, I believe we’ll need to have a restitution hearing to determine restitution in that case,” and trial court’s response, “All right. I will reserve thirty days on the issue of restitution” did not constitute imposition of restitution, and issuance of restitution order 105 days after sentencing, in violation of 60-day rule, required reversal of restitution order).
The appellant’s written plea and acknowledgement of rights form includes a statement of intent to “reserve jurisdiction as to restitution.” The transcript of the disposition hearing reveals that the trial court merely agreed to counsel’s request to “reserve jurisdiction of restitution” in the appellant’s several cases being considered simultaneously. The “Restitution” boxes on the written disposition orders were not checked off. The case at bar is factually distinguishable from A.P. v. State, 558 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), where the restitution order was affirmed in light of evidence that the commitment order stated, “Restitution is to be made,” and the transcript of the disposition hearing demonstrated A.P.’s agreement to pay restitution. See Fairweather v. State, 596 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (trial court had jurisdiction to impose restitution as condition of probation and to reserve jurisdiction to set the amount thereof one year later).
Absent an adequate showing, on the record, of the trial court’s ordering or imposing restitution at the disposition hearing, we find no lawful basis for the trial court’s subsequent finding at the restitution hearing that it had ordered or imposed restitution.
VACATING orders of restitution.
WEBSTER, LAWRENCE and MICKLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1998)…Accordingly, we approve the result in L.O. as explained herein.7 It is so ordered. HARDING, C.J., and OVERTON, KOGAN and WELLS, JJ., concur. PARIENTE, J., concurs in result only with an opinion in which ANSTEAD, J., concurs. . T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); and King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). . The restitution hearing was scheduled and postponed on April 11, 1996; May 24, 1996; and June 17, 1996. . See T.W.L…
-
L.O. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…irst district cases have held that such an oral reservation of jurisdiction would be insufficient to satisfy the requirements outlined above and therefore certify the conflict.1 Accordingly, we affirm the order under review. . See T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(concluding order of restitution not entered in timely manner where trial court agreed merely to "reserve jurisdiction of restitution.”), Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)(fmding trial court's statement at sent…
-
B.M.D. v. State, 691 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. The order of restitution in this case was rendered without jurisdiction, in that it was entered more than sixty days after the disposition hearing. T.W.L. v. State, 684 So. 2d 844 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). We therefore reverse on this issue and remand with di [*593] rections to vacate the order of restitution. We affirm in all other respects. VACATING order of restitution. WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited (13 total)
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993)
- State v. M.C., 666 So. 2d 877 (Fla. 1995)
- Ivory Fairweather v. State, 596 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- A.P. v. State, 558 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Barton-Malow Co. & The Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Gorman Co. OF Ocala, Inc., 558 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- King v. State, 611 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Scott v. State, 629 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- Algenone Flagg v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Campbell v. State, 614 So. 2d 600 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)