C.A., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,
v.
THE 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 juvenile defendant challenged the trial court's authority to impose restitution, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because it failed to enter a written order reserving restitution within sixty days of sentencing. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Florida law does not require a written order to reserve restitution jurisdiction; an oral reservation within the statutory period is sufficient.
The trial court had jurisdiction to impose restitution. Section 775.089, Florida Statutes, and case law interpreting it do not require that an order reserving restitution be reduced to writing; an oral reservation of jurisdiction within sixty days of sentencing is sufficient.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to impose restitution if it orally reserves restitution within sixty days of sentencing, even if the written order does not address the…
[2] An oral pronouncement of a trial court regarding restitution prevails over a conflicting written order.
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“Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), and the cases interpreting it, do not require that the order be reduced to writing.”
Establishes that oral reservation of restitution jurisdiction is legally sufficient
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.A. pleaded guilty to burglary on June 8, 1995, with the State reserving restitution. The trial court's written delinquency order did not address res…
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 Written Order cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, C.A., a juvenile, contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose restitution because it did not enter a written order reserving restitution within sixty days of sentencing. We disagree and affirm.
On June 8, 1995, the trial court accepted C.A.’s plea to a burglary charge with a reservation of restitution. The trial court entered a written order of delinquency and committed C.A. to the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Service. The order did not address the issue of restitution.
At a July 20, 1995 hearing, the court learned of C.A.’s admission to the Eckerd Wilderness Camp. The State requested that a restitution hearing be set and the court orally responded by “reserving restitution” allowing C.A. to remain in the camp without interruption.
Defense counsel was given an opportunity to negotiate the dollar amount of restitution with the victim at an October 5,1995 hearing, but counsel had to confer with C.A. who was still committed at the camp. Thereafter, on December 14, 1995, the defense announced that C.A. had agreed to pay $5,000 restitution, but objected because the court no longer had jurisdiction. Defense counsel conceded that the court reserved jurisdiction, but argued divestiture of jurisdiction by failing to impose restitution within sixty days. The court subsequently issued a restitution order of $5,055.
C.A. argues the trial court did not have jurisdiction because it orally reserved restitution within sixty days of sentencing, rather than entering a written order. We disagree.
Section 775.089, Florida Statutes (1995), and the cases interpreting it, do not require that the order be reduced to writing. See Simmons v. State, 625 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Weckerle v. State, 579 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); In re E.J., 438 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)(finding no error in a juvenile delinquency case where court made oral statement retaining jurisdiction to reserve restitution, but the written commitment order did not address restitution). “[A]n order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter. If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period.” State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
Here, the record is replete with evidence that the • trial court reserved jurisdiction within sixty days of the sentence, and that the defendant was aware of and agreed to restitution as part of the punishment. This is evidenced by the fact that the court accepted the plea agreement in which the State reserved restitution, and the trial court orally stated that it was reserving jurisdiction. Moreover, since the written order did not conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement reserving restitution, the oral pronouncement prevails over the written form. See, e.g., Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Rada v. State, 656 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied, 660 So. 2d 715 (Fla.1995).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L.O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1998)…counsel to the fact that L.O. would be responsible for restitution. At the March hearing, this obligation was confirmed and the determination of amount postponed. Relying on [State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993) ], as well as C.A.[v. State, 685 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ], we reject defendant’s claim that the trial court was without jurisdiction to make the final order of restitution. As we see what transpired, the trial judge made a timely reservation of jurisdiction to award restitution, and th…1 / 2
-
N.C. v. Anderson, 882 So. 2d 990 (Fla. 2004)…for review the decision in N.C. v. Anderson, 837 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002), which certified conflict with the decisions in A.L. v. State, 790 ,So. 2d 1149 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001); S.D.W. v. State, 746 So. 2d 1232 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); C.A. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); T.A.R. v. State, 640 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); and L.M. v. State, 610 So. 2d 1314 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the Fourth District…1 / 2
-
L.O. v. State, 697 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)…supreme court, has made it clear that if restitution is ordered within sixty days of sentencing, the determination of the amount to be paid can be made beyond the sixty-day period. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993). In C.A. v. State, 685 So. 2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) we concluded that an oral reservation of jurisdiction for restitution may meet the above stated statutory requirement, when made within sixty days of sentencing, and made with the defendant’s knowledge that his compliance is being…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- Weckerle v. State, 579 So. 2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Trueblood v. State, 635 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Rada v. State, 656 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- In re In the Interest of E.J., 438 So. 2d 500 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- West v. State, 625 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Simmons v. State, 625 So. 2d 975 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)