Fairweather v. State, 91-1322
| Decision Date | 24 April 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1322,91-1322 |
| Citation | 596 So.2d 1276 |
| Parties | Ivory FAIRWEATHER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. 596 So.2d 1276, 17 Fla. L. Week. D1077 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Carol Ann Turner, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Edward C. Hill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
Ivory Fairweather has appealed from an order setting the amount of restitution to be paid as a condition of his probation. We affirm.
Fairweather plead nolo contendere to the offense of failure to return a rental car, and received 18-months probation. The probation order, entered March 20, 1990, imposed restitution as a condition of probation, but the court reserved jurisdiction to set the amount. One year later, on March 18, 1991, the trial court modified Fairweather's probation to set the amount of restitution at $1500.
Fairweather moved for rehearing, based on State v. Martin, 577 So.2d 689 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). In Martin, the trial court placed the appellant on probation on November 14, 1989, and reserved jurisdiction to impose restitution as a condition of that probation. Eight months later, the court entered its order imposing restitution and setting the amount thereof. However, the court later granted the defendant's motion to strike restitution, agreeing that it was without jurisdiction to modify the sentence in that more than sixty days had passed since its imposition. See Rule 3.800(b), Fla.R.Crim.P. ().
The state appealed, and the appellee moved to dismiss on the ground that the order was not appealable by the state. This court agreed and granted the motion to dismiss. However, in the course of a brief opinion ruling on the motion, this court approved the trial court's determination that it was without jurisdiction to enter the restitution order. It noted that "the failure to impose restitution does not result in an illegal sentence [subject to correction at any time], only an incomplete sentence which is subject to modification ... within 60 days." Martin at 690 (citations omitted). Fairweather relies on this language to argue that, because the trial court herein set the amount of restitution more than 60 days after entry of the probation order, it was without jurisdiction to do so. We disagree.
In Martin, the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sanderson
...have affirmed amounts for restitution determined more than sixty days after imposition of sentence. E.g., Savory; Fairweather v. State, 596 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Smith; Weckerle v. State, 579 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McCaskill v. State, 520 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Vil......
-
T.W.L. v. State
...is to be made," and the transcript of the disposition hearing demonstrated A.P.'s agreement to pay restitution. See Fairweather v. State, 596 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (trial court had jurisdiction to impose restitution as condition of probation and to reserve jurisdiction to set the a......
-
Campbell v. State, 92-2918
...period set forth in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b). King v. State, 611 So.2d 24 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Fairweather v. State, 596 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA1992); Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA1991). The underlying rationale for the principle is that the initial failure ......
-
State v. Bryant
...(approving a trial court's jurisdiction to determine the restitution amount about a year after sentencing); cf. Fairweather v. State , 596 So. 2d 1276, 1277 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (recognizing that "[a] court does not abuse its discretion in leaving determination of the amount of restitution t......