Faurisma v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Faurisma v. State

61 So. 3d 497, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8050, 2011 WL 2135516

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 1, 2011

DocketNo. 2D10-179

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 61 So. 3d 497 (Faurisma 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

Faurisma v. State, 61 So. 3d 497, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8050, 2011 WL 2135516 (Fla. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Kontney Faurisma appeals three orders granting restitution. He argues that the trial court erred in entering the restitution orders without providing him with notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to object. The State agrees that the trial court erred. See Iaconetti v. State, 869 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Mr. Faurisma preserved this issue for appeal by filing a motion to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days so it is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1). Because the trial court should have held a hearing, required the State to prove the appropriate amount of restitution, and given Mr. Faurisma notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, we must reverse the orders and remand for a de novo [498]*498restitution hearing. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2009); Iaconetti, 869 So.2d at 700.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, KELLY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Kontney Faurisma appeals three orders granting restitution. He argues that the trial court erred in entering the restitution orders without providing him with notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to object. The State agrees that the trial court erred. See Iaconetti v. State, 869 So.2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

Mr. Faurisma preserved this issue for appeal by filing a motion to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days so it is deemed denied. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1). Because the trial court should have held a hearing, required the State to prove the appropriate amount of restitution, and given Mr. Faurisma notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, we must reverse the orders and remand for a de novo [498]*498restitution hearing. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2009); Iaconetti, 869 So.2d at 700.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND, KELLY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 So. 3d 497, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 8050, 2011 WL 2135516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/faurisma-v-state-fladistctapp-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack