TINA ALBERTS, 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.
Tina Alberts appealed a restitution judgment entered after her probationary period had expired. The court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose a restitution lien in the original embezzlement case after probation ended in 1996, and reversed the judgment.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to impose the restitution lien after Alberts' probationary period expired in the original case. Additionally, the applicable statute providing for restitution liens could not be applied retroactively to Alberts' offense committed before the statute's effective date.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to impose a lien for restitution after the expiration of the defendant's probationary period in the case where the restitution was ordere…
[2] A probation violation affidavit filed in one case does not automatically extend the jurisdiction of the court over restitution orders originating in a separate, prior cas…
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“the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose the Hen”
The court's central holding that the trial court lacked authority to impose the restitution lien after the probationary period expired.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn 1987, Alberts pleaded guilty to embezzling $67,000 from Cigna Corporation and was placed on probation with $100 monthly restitution payments. In 19…
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 Retroactive Application Of Statutes cases and more on FLexlaw
FRANK, Acting Chief Judge.
On July 30, 1987, the State charged Tina Alberts with embezzling $67,000 from her employer, Cigna Corporation in Case No. 87-09025. Ultimately, she pleaded guilty.
The trial court withheld adjudication, placed her on probation and ordered her to pay $100 per month in restitution for ten years. In 1989, she was charged with violating probation because she had committed other offenses. Those offenses were charged separately in Case No. 89-02482. Alberts pleaded guilty to the violation in Case No. 87-09025 and was adjudicated. Her probation was revoked. She was placed on a two-year term of community control to be followed by five years of probation and was ordered to pay restitution in the same amount of $100 per month. In 1996, an affidavit of violation of probation was filed in Case No. 89-02482. The affidavit supporting the most recent violation of probation failed to include a reference to Case No. 87-09025 in which Alberts had been ordered to pay restitution.
The trial court entered an order in Case No. 87-09025 noting the expiration of the original probationary period in that case and discharged Alberts, but it nonetheless imposed a judgment hen in the amount of $60,310.92. At this juncture, the central question is did the trial court lack jurisdiction to pursue the lien stemming from Case No. 87-09025 upon the expiration of Alberts’ probationary period in that case on April 4, 1996.
We conclude that the trial court was without jurisdiction to impose the lien and we reverse.
The trial court erred in continuing the vitality of the lien for restitution which originated in Case No. 87-09025; Alberts’ probationary period in that case had expired in 1996 when the trial court entered the lien order. See State v. Hall, 641 So. 2d 403 (Fla.1994). Although an affidavit of probation violation had been filed in Case No. 89-02482, there was no reference to Case No. 87-09025 in that affidavit. Thus, the lien question was excluded from the revocation proceeding initiated by the affidavit in Case No. 89-02482.
Further, section 960.292(2), Florida Statutes (1995), upon which the State rehes for its contention that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction to enter a restitution hen order, cannot be apphed retroactively to Al-berts because her offense in Case No. 87-09025 was committed prior to the effective date of that statute. See Gary v. State, 669 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
Reversed and remanded.
THREADGILL and CASANUEVA, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Goad v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 845 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 2003)…have for review the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in State Department of Corrections v. Goad, 754 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000), which certified conflict with Gary v. State, 669 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), and Alberts v. State, 711 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons expressed below, we approve the First District’s decision and hold that sections 960.293 and 960.297, Florida Statutes (Supp.1994), do not violate the constitut…
-
State v. Goad, 754 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)…Remedy Act cannot be applied retroactively. See Gary v. State, 669 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Although perhaps in dicta, the Second District Court of Appeal has also suggested that the Act cannot be applied retroactively. See Alberts v. State, 711 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998). For the reasons expressed in this opinion, we certify conflict with these decisions.…
-
Baez v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- State v. Hall, 641 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 1994)
- Gary v. State, 669 So. 2d 1087 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)