GARDINO MARTINEZ MESA
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 3d DCA | 2023-02-08
No. 21-1960
Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2023)

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.

Holding

A trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of restitution when a defendant objects, and must rule on a motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days or the motion is deemed denied.

Headnotes

[1] When a defendant objects to restitution, a trial court must conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount, with the State bearing the burden of demonstrating the…

[2] If a trial court fails to enter an order ruling on a motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days, the motion is deemed denied and the defendant may raise the all…

Previewing 2 of 2 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
Key Quotes

“For purposes of this rule, sentencing errors include harmful errors in orders entered as a result of the sentencing process. This includes errors in . . . restitution orders, as well as errors within the sentence itself.”

Court commentary to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800, 1999 amendments, establishing that restitution orders are cognizable as sentencing errors in Rule 3.800(b)(2) motions.
Facts & Procedural History

Martinez Mesa was convicted of two counts of animal abandonment and sentenced to probation with special conditions. The trial court ordered restitutio…

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.

Topics
Appeal From Judgment Of Conviction Judgment Of Conviction Appeal Of Sentence Motion To Correct Sentencing Error

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Appeal From Judgment Of Conviction cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

Gardino Martinez Mesa appeals from a judgment of conviction of two counts of animal abandonment, sentence of probation with special conditions, and order of restitution. We affirm the judgment and sentence but vacate the restitution order and remand for further proceedings. The trial court ordered restitution over Mesa’s objection without conducting an evidentiary hearing. Before briefing in this pending appeal, Mesa’s counsel filed a motion to correct sentencing error under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) challenging the trial court’s authority to:1) order restitution payable to the South Florida Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (“SPCA”); and2) impose restitution over objection without a hearing. Below, the State apparently conceded that an evidentiary hearing was required prior to imposition of restitution over a defendant’s objection.1 Thereafter, the trial court orally vacated the restitution order and conducted an evidentiary hearing but failed to enter any order within sixty days of the filing of Mesa’s motion.

Under rule 3.800(b)(2)(B), if the trial court does not file an order ruling on a motion to correct sentencing error within sixty days, the motion shall be

3

Footnotes
1 On appeal, the State argues, among other things, that the restitution amount challenge is not a sentencing issue cognizable in a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. However, the 1999 court commentary to this rule provides: “For purposes of this rule, sentencing errors include harmful errors in orders entered as a result of the sentencing process. This includes errors in . . . restitution orders, as well as errors within the sentence itself.” Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800 court’s commentary to 1999 amendments (emphasis added).
2 deemed denied. See Sessions v. State, 907 So. 2d 572, 573 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (finding trial court’s jurisdiction ends “once 60 days elapse without rendition of an order ruling on the motion”). “As such, the defendant may raise the alleged sentencing errors on direct appeal.” Sampson v. State, 798 So. 2d 824, 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). A restitution hearing is required, as disputes as to the amount of restitution are to be resolved by the trial court by the preponderance of the evidence, and the burden of demonstrating the amount of loss sustained by a victim as a result of the offense is on the state attorney. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2019); Strickland v. State, 746 So. 2d 1189, 1190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (“[S]ection 775.089(7) contemplates an evidentiary hearing where there is a dispute as to restitution.”); Harris v. State, 816 So. 2d 245, 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). Accordingly, we reverse the restitution order and remand this case to the trial court to conduct a new restitution hearing. 2 Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. 2 As we vacate the restitution order and remand for a new hearing, we decline to address in the first instance whether an entity that incurs expenses related to a defendant’s offense, such as the SPCA, can be a “victim” under section 775.089(1)(c).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw