SCOTT LEROY WILLIAMS, 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 order restitution after the notice of appeal was filed.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced, with restitution to be determined later. After the defendant appealed, the trial court held a restitution h…
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 Jurisdiction Of Trial Court After Notice Of Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
Scott Leroy Williams appeals his judgments and sentences for assault on a law enforcement officer, fleeing or eluding, and possession of cocaine. We affirm his judgments and sentences without discussion but reverse the restitution orders and remand for a new restitution hearing.
In imposing Williams’ sentence, the trial court ordered restitution in an amount to be determined at a later hearing. Williams then filed his notice of appeal. While this appeal was pending, the trial court conducted the restitution hearing, imposed restitution, and rendered restitution orders.
Williams contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter a restitution order after Williams filed his notice of appeal. See L’Heureux v. State, 968 So.2d 628, 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Colson v. State, 711 So.2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pearson v. State, 686 So.2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). “A trial court does not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution after a notice of appeal has been filed, even though the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount.” Pearson, 686 So.2d at 721. We note that no request was made to relinquish this court’s jurisdiction. See L’Heu *434 reux, 968 So.2d at 630. Therefore, we reverse the orders that set the amount of restitution and remand to allow the trial court to again conduct a hearing and impose restitution. See Colson, 711 So.2d at 605; Pearson, 686 So.2d at 721-722.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
FULMER and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Renfroe v. State, 20 So. 3d 1027 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…tion after a notice of appeal has been filed, even though the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount.” Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also Williams v. State, 19 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); Jenkins v. State, 954 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Accordingly, we reverse the order imposing restitution and remand for the trial court to have the opportunity to conduct another hearing and reimpose restitution. See Pearson,…
-
Rahaim v. State, 21 So. 3d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…al court then conducted the hearing and entered the restitution order. Rahaim contends, and the State concedes, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order after the notice of appeal had been filed. See Williams v. State, 19 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to allow the trial court to reimpose restitution. See L’Heureux v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. DAVIS and CRENSHAW, JJ., Concur…
-
D.A.D. v. State, 100 So. 3d 67 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…his appeal. Both parties agree that the restitution order must be reversed because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter the restitution order after D.A.D. filed his notice of appeal. See Williams v. State, 19 So. 3d 433 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); L’Heureux v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). However, D.A.D. contends that because the restitution order was not filed within sixty days of the disposition order as required by Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(c…
Authorities Cited
- Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Colson v. State, 711 So. 2d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)
- Wigginton v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)
- L'Heureux v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)