WAYNE DAVIS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 2d DCA | 1996-06-28
No. 95-01220
CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.
685 So. 2d 1357 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (1996) Caution
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify an already-ordered amount of restitution more than sixty days after the original order was entered.

Facts & Procedural History

Wayne Davis appealed his convictions and sentences, arguing the trial court erred in changing the amount of restitution more than sixty days after the…

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.

Opinion of the Court
FULMER, Judge.

FULMER, Judge.

Wayne Davis appeals from his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault and armed robbery, contending that the trial court erred in changing the amount of restitution more than sixty days after the original order of restitution was entered. We agree.

The state argues that, under State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993), the court had jurisdiction to modify the amount of restitution after the sixty-day period had expired because the court had originally ordered restitution within the sixty day period. However, the following language from J.C. v. State, 632 So. 2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), applies here:

Here, the trial court determined the amount of restitution, then, over sixty days later, attempted to modify it. Since the trial court had already set a restitution amount, we believe it was without jurisdiction to amend its previous restitution order. For that reason, we find the instant ease falls outside of the exception to the sixty-day rule announced in Sanderson.

Thus, while the court can set the amount of restitution more than sixty days after entry of an order imposing restitution, the court cannot modify an already-ordered amount of restitution beyond the sixty day period. Therefore, the order amending the restitution amount in this case must be vacated.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER, J., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • State v. Witthaus, 944 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)
    …the order setting the amount of restitution to be made by Witthaus — an amount to be paid by Witthaus as a condition of his probation for a probationary sentence then in effect — it had jurisdiction to make such a determination. Cf. Davis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1357, 1358 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding trial court lacked jurisdiction to amend restitution order; “while the court can set the amount of restitution more than sixty days after entry of an order imposing restitution, the court cannot modify an already-or…
  • Sanchez v. State, 736 So. 2d 159 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
    …00. No one appealed that order. On October 28, 1997, another circuit court judge held a second restitution hearing in the same case and awarded restitution of $14,125. We conclude that we must strike the second restitution order. See Davis v. State, 685 So. 2d 1357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court is authorized to enter a restitution judgment based on the initial award of restitution. ALTENBERND, A.C.J., and WHATLEY and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw