Collins v. State

729 So. 2d 540, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5007, 1999 WL 219353
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Collins v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 697 So. 2d 1305
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 16, 1999·No. No. 98-692·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Maurice Collins raises three issues on appeal of his conviction and sentence for uttering a forged instrument. Only one issue merits discussion. We reverse the order directing Mr. Collins to pay restitution because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the order. We affirm the judgment and sentence otherwise.

The trial court did not order restitution until two days after Mr. Collins had filed his notice of appeal. The notice of appeal divested the trial court of jurisdiction to order restitution. As in Brantley v. State, 723 So.2d 909, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D167, (Fla. 1st DCA 1999), therefore, we reverse the restitution order. See M.C.L. v. State, 682 So.2d 1209, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Critton v. State, 619 So.2d 495, 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).

ERVIN, BOOTH, and BENTON, JJ., CONCUR.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Collins v. State, 729 So. 2d 540, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 5007, 1999 WL 219353 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

729 So. 2d 540 (Collins v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Brantley v. State
723 So. 2d 909 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Critton v. State
619 So. 2d 495 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1993)
M.C.L. v. State
682 So. 2d 1209 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1996)