Skaggs v. State, 92-02753
| Decision Date | 09 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-02753,92-02753 |
| Citation | 620 So.2d 1304 |
| Parties | 18 Fla. L. Weekly D1587 Angela SKAGGS, a/k/a Angela Dawn Skaggs, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Elizabeth L. Hapner, Elizabeth L. Hapner, P.A., Tampa, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Erica M. Raffel, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.
From her conviction and sentence for DUI manslaughter, the appellant claims error surrounding the qualifications of the experts who testified at trial as well as the scope of their testimony, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the restitution ordered as part of her sentence. The restitution order was entered more than sixty days after sentencing. We find no error in the two evidentiary issues raised. See Buchman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 381 So.2d 229, 230 (Fla.1980); Haas v. State, 567 So.2d 966, 968 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), approved, 597 So.2d 770 (Fla.1992). We do, however, find that the trial court was without jurisdiction to order restitution and thus reverse on that issue alone.
At the sentencing hearing held in July 1992 the state attorney requested the trial court to order the appellant to pay the state's cost of prosecution as restitution. Defense counsel requested a hearing on the matter. The trial court then stated: A notice of appeal was then filed in open court. In September, some sixty-three days later, the restitution hearing was held and the trial court ordered the defendant to pay the state's costs of prosecution pursuant to section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1991).
The appellant contends that the trial court's pronouncement was insufficient to reserve jurisdiction to impose costs of prosecution. We disagree. Although the trial court later characterized the quoted language as "equivocal," at the restitution hearing in September the trial court found, and we agree, that the intention to reserve jurisdiction was satisfactorily stated. This however, does not dispose of the issue. Because the notice of appeal was filed in open court at the termination of the sentencing hearing in July, the trial court at that time lost jurisdiction to enter any further order. See Gatlin v. State, 618 So.2d 765 (Fla.2d DCA 1993); Gonzalez v. State, 384 So.2d 57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We, therefore, affirm...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hummell v. State, 96-2799
...effect. M.C.L. v. State, 682 So.2d 1209 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Nguyen v. State, 655 So.2d 1249 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Skaggs v. State, 620 So.2d 1304 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). At that point, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter an order requiring restitution. However, on remand the trial cour......
-
Marinelli v. State, s. 95-02599
...trial court was without jurisdiction to enter the order. See Harth v. State, 694 So.2d 841, 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997); Skaggs v. State, 620 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Gatlin, 618 So.2d at 766. On remand, the trial court may reimpose restitution, provided that it has properly reserved......
-
Pizzo v. State
...after Mr. Pizzo filed a timely notice of appeal. See K.D. v. State, 779 So.2d 468, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Skaggs v. State, 620 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). IV. We affirm Mr. Pizzo's conviction for racketeering and reverse Mr. Pizzo's convictions for mortgage fraud, conspiracy to co......
-
Pizzo v. State
...after Mrs. Pizzo filed a timely notice of appeal. See K.D. v. State, 779 So.2d 468, 468 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000); Skaggs v. State, 620 So.2d 1304, 1305 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993). IV. We affirm Mrs. Pizzo's conviction for organized fraud and reverse Mrs. Pizzo's convictions for mortgage fraud, racketeeri......