Hollins v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Hollins v. State

881 So. 2d 86, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12202, 2004 WL 1856423

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 20, 2004

DocketNo. 5D04-1462

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 881 So. 2d 86 (Hollins 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

Hollins v. State, 881 So. 2d 86, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12202, 2004 WL 1856423 (Fla. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

ORFINGER, J.

Edward M. Hollins petitions for a belated appeal of a restitution order entered against him while his judgment and sentence was on direct appeal. In its response, the State properly concedes that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because of the pending appeal. See Queen v. State, 832 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Marro v. State, 803 So.2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Kern v. State, 726 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).

Restitution is a mandated part of sentencing and must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993). If the court orders restitution at sentencing, or within sixty days thereafter, the court has the authority to reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period. State v. Hiscox, 677 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the instant case, while the court properly reserved jurisdiction at sentencing to impose restitution, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to do so while Hollins’s direct appeal was pending. As a result, the restitution order entered against Hollins on July 8, 2003, is a nullity. Consequently, Hollins has no need for a belated appeal.

PETITION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED.

SHARP, W., J., concurs. PETERSON, J., concurs with result only.

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

ORFINGER, J.

Edward M. Hollins petitions for a belated appeal of a restitution order entered against him while his judgment and sentence was on direct appeal. In its response, the State properly concedes that the trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the restitution order because of the pending appeal. See Queen v. State, 832 So.2d 956, 958 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (citing Marro v. State, 803 So.2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002); Kern v. State, 726 So.2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)).

Restitution is a mandated part of sentencing and must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993). If the court orders restitution at sentencing, or within sixty days thereafter, the court has the authority to reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period. State v. Hiscox, 677 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). In the instant case, while the court properly reserved jurisdiction at sentencing to impose restitution, the trial court was divested of jurisdiction to do so while Hollins’s direct appeal was pending. As a result, the restitution order entered against Hollins on July 8, 2003, is a nullity. Consequently, Hollins has no need for a belated appeal.

PETITION FOR BELATED APPEAL DENIED.

SHARP, W., J., concurs. PETERSON, J., concurs with result only.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

881 So. 2d 86, 2004 Fla. App. LEXIS 12202, 2004 WL 1856423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hollins-v-state-fladistctapp-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack