SANFORD PAUL BUTLER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Butler appeals the summary denial of a motion to correct his sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), challenging restitution orders entered by the trial court while his direct appeal was pending. The court affirms the denial of two claims but reverses the denial of the jurisdictional challenge to restitution, vacating the restitution orders and remanding for reconsideration.
A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter restitution orders after a notice of appeal has been filed, even if restitution was previously ordered with the amount to be determined later. A Rule 3.800(a) motion is an appropriate vehicle to collaterally attack such restitution orders based on the trial court's lack of jurisdiction.
[1] A trial court lacks jurisdiction to enter an order of restitution after a notice of appeal has been filed, even if it previously reserved jurisdiction as to the amount.
[2] A motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a) is an available avenue to collaterally attack restitution orders entered without jurisdicti…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“A trial court does not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution after a notice of appeal has been filed, even though the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount.”
Establishes the fundamental jurisdictional principle that trial courts lose authority over restitution matters once an appeal is filed.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceButler pleaded no contest to multiple charges in five separate cases and was sentenced to eighteen years in prison with restitution to be determined l…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pending Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
LaROSE, Judge.
Sanford Paul Butler appeals the summary denial of his motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a). We affirm the postconviction court’s denial of claims one and two without comment. We reverse the denial of claim three, vacate the restitution orders, and remand for further proceedings.
Mr. Butler pleaded no contest to multiple charges in five separate cases. The trial court sentenced Mr. Butler to eighteen years in prison and ordered restitution in amounts to be determined at a later date. Before the trial court could set the restitution amounts, Mr. Butler filed a notice of appeal. Shortly thereafter, the State wrote to Mr. Butler’s counsel and proposed restitution amounts. Mr. Butler’s counsel did not object. Consequently, during the pendency of Mr. Butler’s direct appeal, the trial court entered the State’s proposed restitution orders.
Subsequently, Mr. Butler moved to vacate the restitution orders, arguing that the trial court failed to enter them in a timely manner.
We affirmed the denial of that motion. In doing so, we observed that the trial court entered the restitution orders while Mr. Butler’s direct appeal was pending. See Butler v. State, 901 So. 2d 922, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). “A trial court does not have jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or enter an order of restitution after a notice of appeal has been filed, even though the trial court may have previously ordered restitution and reserved jurisdiction only as to the amount.” Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Thus, our affir-mance in Butler was without prejudice to any right Mr. Butler “may have to collaterally attack the restitution orders” on the basis that the trial court lacked jurisdiction. Butler, 901 So. 2d at 924.
Presumably responding to our invitation, Mr. Butler filed a rule 3.800(a) motion claiming that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution orders. The postconviction court denied the motion, concluding that the requested relief was unavailable under rule 3.800(a).
However, our decision in Butler contemplated exactly such an avenue of relief by relying on Strayer v. State, 676 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996), a case that reversed a summary denial of a rule 3.800(a) motion contesting a restitution order. See Butler, 901 So. 2d at 924.
Moreover, given the posture of Mr. Butler’s direct appeal, we cannot conclude that our decision in Butler contemplated a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850.
We affirmed Mr. Butler’s convictions and sentences in 2002.
Thus, when Butler issued, the two-year filing window under rule 3.850 had closed. Because of our decision in Butler, we reverse the postconviction court’s denial of the rule 3.800(a) motion. Further, because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution orders, we direct the postconviction court to vacate .those orders.
While the trial court had previously reserved jurisdiction to enter restitution orders, that jurisdiction was temporarily suspended during the appeal of his convictions and sentences. See Butler, 901 So. 2d at 924. Accordingly, on remand, the postcon-viction court may reconsider the imposition of restitution amounts against Mr. Butler. See Harth v. State, 694 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
STRINGER and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
L'Heureux v. State, 968 So. 2d 628 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007)…So. 2d 604, 605 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998); Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997). In other words, a trial court’s jurisdiction to impose a restitution order is temporarily suspended once a notice of appeal is filed. See Butler v. State, 951 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). In the present case, the trial court did not order restitution at sentencing on August 31, 2006, and Mr. L’Heureux timely filed his notice of appeal on September 29, 2006. Despite the notice of appeal having been filed, the…
-
Heare v. State, 283 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)…s case that the defendant was not provided notice of the restitution hearing, that error is so analogous to the procedural error in Donaldson that we must conclude that it too is not cognizable in a rule 3.800(a) motion. See also Graham v. State, 160 So. 3d 108, 109 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a defendant's claim that he "was denied due process when the court ordered restitution without holding a separate restitution hearing and by failing to determine that he has the ability to pay" was not cogni…1 / 2
-
Weiker v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…d federal taxes, and deposits for victims involved with charges that were abandoned by the State. A claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to challenge the amount of restitution can be raised in a postconviction motion. See Butler v. State, 951 So. 2d 38, 40 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). The trial court denied Weiker’s claim because his counsel failed to object. However, that is the essence of Weiker’s claim–that had counsel asked for a restitution hearing, the amount of restitution ordered would have been s…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)
- Strayer v. State, 676 So. 2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Sanford Paul Butler v. State, 901 So. 2d 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)
- Harth v. State, 694 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)