Funchess v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Funchess v. State

705 So. 2d 713, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1313, 1998 WL 60400

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 17, 1998

DocketNo. 96-3023

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 705 So. 2d 713 (Funchess 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

Funchess v. State, 705 So. 2d 713, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1313, 1998 WL 60400 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, appellant, Aubrey Funchess (Funchess) was convicted of manslaughter. The Public Defender filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Funchess waived his right to file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and agree with the Public Defender that no good faith argument can be made that reversible error occurred in the trial court. Accordingly, Funchess’ convictions and sentences are affirmed. However, as pointed out by the Public Defender, the civil judgment of restitution was entered after the notice of appeal had divested the trial court of jurisdiction, and therefore that civil judgment imposing restitution is vacated. See, e.g., Prance v. State, 702 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); M.C.L. v. State, 682 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court may again impose the restitution, following the proper procedures concerning notice and proofs, should the state demonstrate that its right to restitution has been preserved. See, e.g., Hummell v. State, 693 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

MINER and WOLF, JJ„ and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial, appellant, Aubrey Funchess (Funchess) was convicted of manslaughter. The Public Defender filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Funchess waived his right to file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and agree with the Public Defender that no good faith argument can be made that reversible error occurred in the trial court. Accordingly, Funchess’ convictions and sentences are affirmed. However, as pointed out by the Public Defender, the civil judgment of restitution was entered after the notice of appeal had divested the trial court of jurisdiction, and therefore that civil judgment imposing restitution is vacated. See, e.g., Prance v. State, 702 So.2d 627 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); M.C.L. v. State, 682 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). On remand, the trial court may again impose the restitution, following the proper procedures concerning notice and proofs, should the state demonstrate that its right to restitution has been preserved. See, e.g., Hummell v. State, 693 So.2d 113 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997).

MINER and WOLF, JJ„ and SHIVERS, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

705 So. 2d 713, 1998 Fla. App. LEXIS 1313, 1998 WL 60400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/funchess-v-state-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack