RONNIE WALLACE, 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.
Wallace pleaded no contest to insurance fraud and grand theft with restitution ordered but amount deferred. After the trial court held a restitution hearing and expressly ordered "no restitution" on December 6, 2000, which the State did not appeal, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State's subsequent motion to set restitution on May 23, 2001. The appellate court reversed the two restitution orders entered after that hearing.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain and rule on the State's motion to set restitution on May 23, 2001. The December 6, 2000 order denying restitution was final, expressly denied restitution, and was never appealed by the State. The State's failure to timely appeal that order prevented the trial court from subsequently entertaining the restitution motion.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a motion to set restitution after previously entering a final order denying restitution, when the state failed to appeal the…
[2] An order denying restitution, which is not appealed by the state, is considered final and cannot be ignored in subsequent proceedings.
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“Simply, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, and rule on, the State's motion to set restitution on May 23, 2001.”
States the core holding that the trial court had no jurisdiction to revisit the restitution issue after the final December 6 order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn October 16, 2000, Wallace pled no contest to insurance fraud and grand theft; the trial court accepted his plea, withheld adjudication, placed him …
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 Finality Of Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, C.J.
Ronnie Wallace contends the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the State’s motion to set restitution on May 23, 2001, and hence the two restitution orders entered subsequent to that hearing must be reversed. We agree.
On October 16, 2000, Wallace pled no contest to insurance fraud and grand theft. The trial court accepted his plea, withheld adjudication, and placed Wallace on probation, ordering restitution, with the amount to be determined at a later date. A restitution hearing was duly held on December 6, 2000; Wallace was present, however the State provided the victim was not and therefore they could not proceed at that time. The court orally pronounced, “Okay. State can’t go forward. No restitution. Thank you.” At no time did the State object or move for a continuance. The trial court then entered a written order denying restitution consistent with its oral pronouncements. This order was never appealed by the State.
Thereafter, on January 26, 2001, the State, represented by a new prosecutor, came before the trial court and argued it was now ready to move forward on Wallace’s restitution hearing. After taking the matter under advisement on a number of occasions, finally, on May 23, 2001, the trial court allowed the State to proceed, accepting testimony from the insurance agent who had investigated the underlying claims. Thereafter, the trial court entered two restitution orders, one in the amount of $9,012, payable to State Farm Insurance, and one in the amount of $753.30, payable to the State Department of Insurance Fraud.
Simply, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain, and rule on, the State’s motion to set restitution on May 23, 2001. The State failed to timely appeal the December 6, 2000 order denying restitution. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(c)(l)(M); 9.140(c)(3). Arguments advanced by the State now, on this appeal, that that order should never have been entered in the first place, are unavailing. Moreover, while we agree with the general proposition that a trial court generally has jurisdiction to set the amount of previously ordered restitution up until the termination of the defendant’s probation, we disagree with the State’s argument that the trial court could have set the amount of Wallace’s restitution at any time up until the termination of his probation simply because the trial court had originally ordered restitution when it accepted his plea. Cf. Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993). Here, although the trial court initially ordered restitution, three weeks later it expressly ordered “no restitution,” an order which the State failed to appeal. The entry of this order cannot be ignored. That order was final, that order expressly denied restitution, and that order was never appealed. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to subsequently entertain the State’s motion to set restitution. Accordingly, the two restitution orders entered subsequent to the May 23, 2001 hearing are reversed.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ, concur.