R.D., A CHILD, 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 court held that a restitution order entered more than 60 days after disposition was timely if the restitution obligation was imposed at the time of disposition.
The State sought clarification of a prior opinion. The appellant argued that a restitution order was untimely because it was entered more than 60 days…
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.
On Motion for Clarification
PER CURIAM.
The state seeks clarification of our opinion in R.D. v. State, 24 Fla.L. Weekly D1429 (Fla. 1st DCA June 17, 1999). We withdraw this opinion and grant clarification by entering the following revised opinion.
R.D. appeals a restitution order arguing that, because the order establishing the amount of restitution pursuant to section 775.089(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1997), was entered more than 60 days from the date of the disposition order contrary to rule 3.800(e), Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure, the trial court had no jurisdiction to order restitution. We find the appellant’s argument without merit and affirm.
In the instant case, the plea agreement, plea hearing, and disposition order all show that the trial court was imposing a restitution obligation. Under the circumstances, because the order establishing the restitution obligation was entered in a timely manner, the trial court had the jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period in rule 3.800(c). See L .O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1998).
ERVIN, VAN NORTWICK and BROWNING, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Connor v. State, 944 So. 2d 488 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…risdiction to set the amount of previously ordered restitution up until the termination of the defendant’s probation” or until a final order is entered establishing the amount) (citing Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993)); R.D. v. State, 743 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (“Under the circumstances, because the order establishing the restitution obligation was entered in a timely manner, the trial court had the jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period in…
Authorities Cited
- L.O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1998)