ADRIAN MICHAEL KERN, 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 trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing or enter restitution orders after the defendant filed his notice of appeal.
The defendant pleaded nolo contendere to leaving the scene of an accident and DUI, was sentenced to probation, and ordered to pay restitution. After t…
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 Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
[*354] THOMPSON, J.
Adrian Michael Kern timely appeals his convictions and sentences for leaving the scene of an accident involving injury and driving under the influence. As part of the disposition, the trial court set a restitution hearing and ordered restitution after Kern had filed' his notice of appeal. We affirm the convictions and sentences, but reverse the restitution order and remand for a restitution hearing because the trial court did not have jurisdiction.
Kern entered a plea of nolo contendere to the two charges.' He was adjudicated guilty and' sentenced on 12 August 1997 to three years probation. As part of the plea agreement, Kern agreed to pay restitution in the amounts of $1,230 for the victim’s medical expenses and $1,500 for his lost wages. The restitution order stated, “Jurisdiction reserved for' further restitution hearing to be scheduled.” The state filed a motion for additional restitution seeking an order for $6,000 for the value of the victim’s car, $1,260 for storage fees, and $197 for towing. Kern’s notice of appeal was filed on 3 September 1997 and the trial court conducted the restitution hearing on 8 September 1997-
The trial court had no jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing or enter restitution orders after Kern filed a notice of appeal, even though the court previously ordered restitution and properly .reserved jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing. Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). The orders are therefore reversed and upon remand, if the trial court desires to impose additional restitution, it must conduct another hearing. In addition to the pre-crash value of the car, the state must present testimony of the car’s salvage value. Bowman v. State, 698 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED and REMANDED.
W. SHARP, and PETERSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Marro v. State, 803 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…estitution hearing and enter an order setting the amount of restitution after the notice of appeal had been filed. However, on remand, the trial court may impose restitution after a new hearing to determine the same. See id.; see also Kern v. State, 726 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)(trial court did not have jurisdiction to conduct restitution hearing or to enter restitution order after appellant filed his notice of appeal, even though trial court previously ordered restitution and properly reserved juri…
-
Santana v. State, 795 So. 2d 1112 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001)…crime. The court concluded that reversal of the restitution order was required because “[w]ithout this evidence, the trial court was unable to properly carry out its duty to order restitution for the amount of the loss.” Id.; see also Kern v. State, 726 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (holding that upon remand, the state was required to present evidence, inter alia, of the salvage value of the car). We conclude, as the court in Bowman did, that reversal of the order of restitution is required in the instant c…
-
Woods v. State, 879 So. 2d 651 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…comports with analogous decisions from this court holding that restitution may not be ordered after a notice of appeal is filed even though the trial court reserved jurisdiction to consider the amount of restitution at sentencing. See Kern v. State, 726 So. 2d 353, 354 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (“The trial court had no jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing or enter restitution orders after Kern filed a notice of appeal, even though the court previously ordered restitution and properly reserved jurisdiction…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Sang Van Nguyen v. State, 655 So. 2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Bowman v. State, 698 So. 2d 615 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)