JESSICA FREHE, 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.
A trial court loses jurisdiction to order restitution after a notice of appeal is filed, even if jurisdiction was reserved.
Defendant pleaded guilty to burglary and was sentenced, with restitution amount to be determined later. Defendant filed a notice of appeal before the …
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 Restitution Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Jessica Frehe was convicted of burglary of an unoccupied conveyance following a guilty plea. We affirm Ms. Frehe’s judgment and sentence in this Anders1 appeal without discussion, but we reverse as to the restitution order and remand for further proceedings.
Ms. Frehe was sentenced on January 27, 2014, restitution was ordered, and the trial court reserved jurisdiction as to the amount. A restitution hearing was held on February 24, 2014, and the trial court entered an order imposing restitution in the amount of $573. However, Ms. Frehe had filed a pro se notice of appeal on February 18, 2014.
“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 v. State, 686 So.2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); see also Rattee v. State, 128 So.3d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). The trial court in this case thus did not have jurisdiction to hold a hearing and enter an order of restitution, since Ms. Frehe had already filed her notice of appeal. Accordingly, we reverse the order setting the amount of restitution. On remand, the trial court may conduct another hearing and again impose restitution.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; remanded.
ALTENBERND and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stapler v. State, 190 So. 3d 162 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016)…reverse his conviction under section 847.0135(3)(b) accordingly. Stapler further argues that the trial court violated his double-jeopardy rights by reimposing certain conditions of probation after the trial court struck them. See Peacock v. State, 167 So. 3d 514, 516 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015) (“The enhancement of probation conditions, absent proof of a violation, is precluded by double jeopardy principles.”). At Stapler’s initial sentencing, the trial court adjudicated Stapler a sex offender and imposed “sex-offe…
-
V.U.B. v. State, 189 So. 3d 303 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…sdiction on the issue of restitution, it loses jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or to enter a restitution order once a defendant files his notice of appeal.” Rattee v. State, 128 So. 3d 876, 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013); see also Frehe v. State, 167 So. 3d 514, 514 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (“A trial court does hot 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 reserv…
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Rattee v. State, 128 So. 3d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)