State v. Sanderson, No. 81454

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the CourtMcDONALD; BARKETT
Citation625 So.2d 471
Parties18 Fla. L. Weekly S520 STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Rickey Faye SANDERSON, Respondent.
Docket NumberNo. 81454
Decision Date07 October 1993

Page 471

625 So.2d 471
18 Fla. L. Weekly S520
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Rickey Faye SANDERSON, Respondent.
No. 81454.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct. 7, 1993.

Page 472

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Dale E. Tarpley and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Cecilia A. Traina, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for respondent.

McDONALD, Justice.

We review State v. Sanderson, 615 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), because of conflict with Savory v. State, 600 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision under review.

On May 17, 1991 Sanderson pled guilty to one count of grand theft, and the court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment to be followed by one year's probation and ordered that Sanderson pay restitution to the victim. A hearing on the state's motion to determine the amount of restitution was set for June 20, 1991. Because the victim could not attend that hearing and Sanderson would not consent to the amount of restitution requested by the state, the state asked for a continuance. The court granted the continuance, conditioned on the state's filing for a second restitution hearing within sixty days of sentencing. The state filed its second notice of hearing on June 25, 1995, and the second restitution hearing was set for August 8, 1991. On that date the defense objected that it was more than sixty days after May 17th and, therefore, untimely. The trial court agreed and held that unless a restitution hearing is held within sixty days of sentencing the court loses jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution. The state petitioned the district court for a writ of common law certiorari, which that court denied.

Subsection 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly by the defendant's offense." Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) provides that a legal sentence may be reduced or modified within sixty days after that sentence is imposed. Several district courts, including the instant one, have read rule 3.800(b) to mean that the trial court must determine the amount of restitution within sixty days of imposing sentence or it will lose jurisdiction. E.g., Weaver v. State, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
45 practice notes
  • Connor v. State, No. 5D05-3994.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 8, 2006
    ...part of sentencing and must be ordered at the time the sentence is imposed or within 60 days thereafter. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993). In the event restitution is ordered within 60 days of sentencing, as was done in the instant case, the trial court has jurisdiction......
  • Silky v. State, No. 4D17–2945
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 13, 2017
    ...must be imposed at sentencing or within 60 days thereafter, the amount can be determined at a later date. See State v. Sanderson , 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993). It is because a sentencing order must be appealed within 30 days of the rendition of a sentence that Florida courts have held th......
  • State v. Davis, No. 3D12–1853.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 5, 2014
    ...of the sentence, and a restitution order must be imposed at the time of the sentence or within 60 days thereafter. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2012) (providing generally that “[i]n addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to ma......
  • State v. Riley, No. 94-1210
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 4, 1995
    ...court imposed a restitution requirement but failed to set the amount, the State was entitled to a writ of certiorari. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472-73 In the exercise of discretion, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari. In the cases just cited, an extraordinary writ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
45 cases
  • Connor v. State, No. 5D05-3994.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 8, 2006
    ...part of sentencing and must be ordered at the time the sentence is imposed or within 60 days thereafter. See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993). In the event restitution is ordered within 60 days of sentencing, as was done in the instant case, the trial court has jurisdiction......
  • Silky v. State, No. 4D17–2945
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • December 13, 2017
    ...must be imposed at sentencing or within 60 days thereafter, the amount can be determined at a later date. See State v. Sanderson , 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993). It is because a sentencing order must be appealed within 30 days of the rendition of a sentence that Florida courts have held th......
  • State v. Davis, No. 3D12–1853.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • February 5, 2014
    ...of the sentence, and a restitution order must be imposed at the time of the sentence or within 60 days thereafter. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); § 775.089, Fla. Stat. (2012) (providing generally that “[i]n addition to any punishment, the court shall order the defendant to ma......
  • State v. Riley, No. 94-1210
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 4, 1995
    ...court imposed a restitution requirement but failed to set the amount, the State was entitled to a writ of certiorari. State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472-73 In the exercise of discretion, we decline to issue a writ of mandamus or certiorari. In the cases just cited, an extraordinary writ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT