Davis v. State, 95-01220

• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: FULMER; CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and PARKER
• Citation: Davis v. State, 685 So.2d 1357 (Fla. App. 1996)
• Decision Date: 28 June 1996
• Docket Number: No. 95-01220,95-01220
• Parties: 21 Fla. L. Weekly D1525 Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Page 1357

685 So.2d 1357

21 Fla. L. Weekly D1525

Wayne DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 95-01220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Second District.

June 28, 1996.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, Bartow, and Brad Permar, Assistant Public Defender, Clearwater, for Appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Dale E. Tarpley, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

FULMER, Judge.

Wayne Davis appeals from his convictions and sentences for aggravated assault and armed robbery, contending that the trial court erred in changing the amount of restitution more than sixty days after the original order of restitution was entered. We agree.

The state argues that, under State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993), the court had jurisdiction to modify the amount of restitution after the sixty-day period had expired because the court had originally ordered restitution within the sixty day period. However, the following language from J.C. v. State, 632 So.2d 1092 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994), applies here:

Here, the trial court determined the amount of restitution, then, over sixty days later, attempted to modify it. Since the trial court had already set a restitution amount, we believe it was without jurisdiction to amend its previous restitution order. For that reason, we find the instant case falls outside of the exception to the sixty-day rule announced in Sand...