STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLANT,
v.
B.L.T., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's jurisdictional ruling and remanded for clarification of whether the court intended to award restitution to be determined later or deny it subject to a 60-day reinstatement period.
A trial court may proceed with a restitution hearing if it intended to award restitution with the amount to be determined later, but lacks jurisdiction if it denied the request and no reinstatement was sought within the specified 60-day period.
[1] A trial court's jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing in a juvenile delinquency case depends on whether the disposition order awarded restitution with amount to b…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a juvenile delinquency case, the trial court issued a disposition order regarding restitution to Occidental Insurance Company, but the order's lang…
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 Procedural Requirements cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The state seeks review of the trial court’s order holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the state’s request for a restitution hearing in a juvenile delinquency case. We are unable to determine from the disposition order and the comments of the trial judge (who was a different judge from the one who entered the order on appeal) whether, at the disposition hearing, the trial judge intended to award Occidental Insurance Company restitution in an amount to be determined at a later date, or whether he intended to deny the request for restitution subject to the state’s right within 60 days to again seek restitution on behalf of Occidental. If the former is the case, the trial court may proceed with a hearing to determine the amount of restitution to which Occidental is entitled. See Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla.1993); State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla.1993); L.O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla.1998). If, however, the lat ter is the case, the trial court is without jurisdiction to proceed with a restitution hearing because no request was made within the 60-day period set in the disposition order. See C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Butler v. State, 901 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order. On remand, the trial court shall clarify its intent regarding Occidental’s restitution claim, and then proceed as outlined in this opinion.
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State v. Gaines, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993)
- L.O. v. State, 718 So. 2d 155 (Fla. 1998)
- Gladfelter v. State, 618 So. 2d 1364 (Fla. 1993)
- C.W. v. State, 637 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994)
- Sanford Paul Butler v. State, 901 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)