ROBERT A. SCHWEICKERT, JR.
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
Appellant appealed his conviction for animal cruelty, and the trial court held a restitution hearing while his appeal was pending. The court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the restitution hearing after the notice of appeal was filed, so the restitution order was struck and the case remanded for a new hearing.
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold the restitution hearing or enter the restitution order once a notice of appeal was filed. The restitution order is struck and the case is remanded for the trial court to conduct another restitution hearing.
[1] A trial court is divested of jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing or enter a restitution order once a notice of appeal has been filed, regardless of whether the…
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 intelligence“Once a notice of appeal has been filed, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution, even if it reserves jurisdiction only as to the amount.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that trial courts lose jurisdiction to conduct restitution hearings after notice of 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 intelligenceAppellant was charged with four counts of aggravated animal cruelty and twenty-three counts of cruelty to animals. He accepted a plea agreement with a…
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 Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
Case No. 5D22-2643 LT Case No. 2021-CF-000099-A
_____________________________
ROBERT A. SCHWEICKERT, JR.,
Appellant,
v. STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County. Richard A. Howard, Judge. Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., Raiford, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T. Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
April 12, 2024 HARRIS, J.
Appellant, Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., appeals the trial court’s restitution order, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing and order restitution while his appeal was pending. We agree, strike the restitution order and remand for the trial court to conduct another hearing.
The State charged Appellant with four counts of aggravated animal cruelty and twenty-three counts of cruelty to animals. Appellant rejected the State’s plea offer but accepted the trial court’s disposition of a four-year cap on incarceration in exchange for a no contest plea. The State noted at the plea hearing it would be seeking $128,090.54 in restitution. Appellant requested a hearing on the restitution amount. On July 12, 2022, the court sentenced Appellant to four years in the Department of Corrections on the four counts of aggravated animal cruelty and reserved on the restitution amount.
Appellant appealed his judgment and sentence, and on October 4, 2022, while his appeal was pending, the court conducted a restitution hearing, during which Appellant stipulated to the original judgment amount from his civil case ($128,090.54) as the amount of restitution in his criminal case.
On appeal, Appellant argues the restitution order should be vacated because the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct the hearing and enter the order. Once a notice of appeal has been filed, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution, even if it reserves jurisdiction only as to the amount. See Kleintank v. State, 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015); Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). The State properly concedes that the court lacked jurisdiction at the time 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.
_____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Smith v. State, 39 So. 3d 471 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)
- Kleintank v. State, 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015)