David v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

David v. State

187 So. 3d 947, 2016 WL 1133714

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMarch 23, 2016

DocketNo. 4D13-4509

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 187 So. 3d 947 (David v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

David v. State, 187 So. 3d 947, 2016 WL 1133714 (Fla. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order imposing restitution, as the State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing it after the notice of appeal was filed. David was convicted of aggravated battery with a knife and sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections, followed by five years of probation. A special condition of her probation required that she pay restitution, but the court reserved jurisdiction to impose it for ninety days. Before the court did so, David filed a notice of appeal. The court then assessed restitution in the amount of $11,087. On appeal, the State concedes that, based on Marro v. State, 803 So.2d 906, 907 (Fla. 4th. DCA 2002), it was error for the trial court to impose restitution after the notice of appeal was filed, as the notice divested the court of the jurisdiction to do so. Thus, we reverse and remand for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution.

WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order imposing restitution, as the State concedes that the trial court erred in imposing it after the notice of appeal was filed. David was convicted of aggravated battery with a knife and sentenced to five years in the Department of Corrections, followed by five years of probation. A special condition of her probation required that she pay restitution, but the court reserved jurisdiction to impose it for ninety days. Before the court did so, David filed a notice of appeal. The court then assessed restitution in the amount of $11,087. On appeal, the State concedes that, based on Marro v. State, 803 So.2d 906, 907 (Fla. 4th. DCA 2002), it was error for the trial court to impose restitution after the notice of appeal was filed, as the notice divested the court of the jurisdiction to do so. Thus, we reverse and remand for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution.

WARNER, MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 So. 3d 947, 2016 WL 1133714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-v-state-fladistctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack