RICHARD LEE SMITH, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 1st DCA | 2010-07-07
No. 1D09-5934
WEBSTER, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.
39 So. 3d 471 Florida District Court of Appeal, First District (2010) Positive Treatment
Cited by 5 cases

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.

Synopsis

Richard Lee Smith appeals his conviction for eleven counts of grand theft and one count of failing to file tax returns. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but reversed the restitution order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter it after Smith filed his notice of appeal.


Holding

The trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because it was rendered after Smith filed his notice of appeal. The restitution order is reversed and the case is remanded for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing and enter a new restitution order.


Headnotes

[1] A trial court loses jurisdiction to enter a restitution order once a defendant files a notice of appeal.

[2] A trial court may not enter a restitution order after a notice of appeal has been filed, even if it previously reserved jurisdiction as to the amount.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because it was rendered months after Smith filed his notice of appeal”

Establishes the core holding that trial courts lose jurisdiction over restitution matters once an appeal is filed

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

Smith was convicted of eleven counts of grand theft (amounts between $300 and $5,000) and one count of failing to file six consecutive tax returns. Th…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Richard Lee Smith, Appellant, appeals his judgment and sentence for eleven counts of grand theft from the State of Florida of more than $300 but less than $5,000, and for one count of failing to file six consecutive tax returns. Smith was required to pay restitution as a result of this judgment. Smith’s appellate counsel *472filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm Smith’s judgment and sentence without discussion but reverse the trial court’s restitution order and remand for further proceedings.1

The trial court’s judgment and sentence was rendered on October 16, 2009. The trial court reserved ruling on the amount of restitution pending a hearing. On October 30, 2009, before a restitution hearing was held, Smith filed a notice of appeal with this Court. In January 2010, the trial court held a restitution hearing and entered a restitution order in connection with this hearing.

Our independent review of the record reveals that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because it was rendered months after Smith filed his notice of appeal. Fuller v. State, 786 So.2d 1269, 1269 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001) (in an Anders appeal, holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter two restitution orders because the orders “were rendered after [the defendant] had filed her notice of appeal”); Frazier v. State, 748 So.2d 1104, 1104 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (reaching this same conclusion, also in an Anders case, with respect to one restitution order); see also Pearson v. State, 686 So.2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (explaining that this principle applies even if “the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount”). Accordingly, we strike the restitution order and remand for the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing and to enter a new restitution order.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

WEBSTER, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Tramel v. State, 68 So. 3d 340 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)
    …ing dangerous sexual felony offender designation and adding to two concurrent sentences of life imprisonment and a 25-year mandatory minimum term, as amendments were made after notice of appeal had been filed and appeal was pending); Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 471, 471 n. 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (noting that although the discovery of any potential issue following Anders briefing usually requires an appellate court to issue an order which either appoints new counsel or allows present counsel to file a supplement…
  • Cletus Ray Thompson v. State, 227 So. 3d 777 (Fla. 1st DCA 2017)
    …er the notice of appeal was filed, the trial court held a restitution hearing and ordered Thompson to pay restitution. The State properly concedes that it was reversible error to do so because the trial court lacked jurisdiction. See Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 471, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“[T]he trial court did not have jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because it was rendered months after Smith filed his notice of appeal.”) Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence, but strike the restituti…
  • Schweickert v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)
    …it held the hearing and entered the restitution order. Accordingly, we strike the restitution order and remand for the trial court to conduct another restitution hearing and again impose restitution. See Kleintank, 178 So. 3d at 15; Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 471, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010). Restitution Order STRICKEN and REMANDED. JAY and PRATT, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw