K.T. v. State

• Citation: 331 So.3d 1293 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 04 February 2022
• Docket Number: 2D20-670
• Parties: K.T., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Florida (US)

331 So.3d 1293 (Mem)

K.T., Appellant,

v.STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D20-670

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 4, 2022

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Juvenile offender K.T. was adjudicated delinquent for the grand theft of a motor vehicle and was ordered to pay restitution for damage to the vehicle. K.T. appealed the order imposing restitution. During the pendency of the appeal, K.T. filed a Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to correct the disposition order, asserting that the trial court failed to address K.T.'s ability to pay when imposing restitution. Following a hearing on the motion, the trial court found that the State failed to prove both the appropriate amount of restitution and K.T.'s ability to pay. The court therefore orally ruled that the State's "motion for restitution is denied."

With that issue apparently resolved, K.T.'s appellate counsel filed an Anders¹ brief asserting that he could find no remaining arguable points on appeal. While we generally agree with that conclusion, it appears that the trial court did not render an amended disposition order after orally denying restitution. Rather, the record contains only a docket note from the courtroom clerk. We therefore remand for the court to render an amended disposition order reflecting that K.T. is not required to pay restitution. The disposition and sentence are otherwise affirmed.

Affirmed and remanded.

NORTHCUTT, LaROSE, and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

1 Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).