TERENCE YATES, 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 appellate court dismissed the appeal because it lacked jurisdiction under the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996.
The defendant appealed a restitution order entered after his convictions, arguing the amount was improper and the hearing was held in his absence with…
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 Criminal Appeal Reform Act Of 1996 cases and more on FLexlaw
BLUE, Acting Chief Judge.
Terence Yates appeals the order of restitution entered subsequent to his convictions and sentences for burglary and grand theft. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal based on the Criminal Appeal Reform Act of 1996, section 924.051, Florida Statutes (Supp.1996), we dismiss the appeal.
Yates entered no contest pleas to the charges of burglary and grand theft. He did not preserve any dispositive issues for appellate review. He was placed on two years of probation. Subsequently, a restitution hearing was held. Yates was not present at the hearing, had not been noticed for the hearing, and had not waived his presence at the hearing. Yates’ attorney did not object to the hearing being conducted in Yates’ absence nor to the amount of restitution imposed. Yates then appealed the restitution order, challenging both the amount of the restitution assessed and that the restitution hearing was conducted in his absence. See Papageorge v. State, 710 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
Under the Criminal Appeals Reform Act, this court’s jurisdiction is limited to an alleged prejudicial error that has been properly preserved or, if not properly preserved, that would constitute funda mental error. Bain v. State, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D314, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (en banc). Here, the alleged errors were not preserved for appellate review. Additionally, the alleged errors do not amount to an “illegal” sentence, nor do they undermine “the integrity of our system of justice.” Bain, 24 Fla. L. Weekly at D318, 730 So. 2d at 302.
Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal without prejudice to Yates timely filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
WHATLEY and STRINGER, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dragani v. State, 759 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…t the sentencing hearing, an order was entered which imposed an amount roughly equal to the amount stolen from the bank, less funds recovered. This does not constitute fundamental error. See Maddox v. State, 760 So. 2d 89 (Fla.2000); Yates v. State, 738 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). Further, Dragani did not file a motion to correct sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). Thus, -this issue was not preserved for appeal. See Noland v. State, 734 So. 2d 464 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999); Mitchell…
-
Griffin v. State, 760 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…both as to parties and subject matter, and necessarily does so by proceeding in the cause. See, e.g., Sun Ins. Co. v. Boyd, 105 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla.1958); State ex rel. B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Trammell, 192 So. 175, 177 (Fla.1939). In Yates v. State, 738 So. 2d 964 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999), we dismissed an appeal from a restitution order entered subsequent to convictions and sentences for lack of jurisdiction under CARA after determining that the alleged errors were not properly preserved for appellate review and di…
Authorities Cited
- Bain v. State, 730 So. 2d 296 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Papageorge v. State, 710 So. 2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)