190 So. 3d 99
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2015Background
- White appeals a final order finding him guilty of attempted first-degree murder and reserving jurisdiction to determine restitution; he contends the restitution amount hearing is untimely and barred by procedure and laches.
- The trial court, in 2013, corrected a 2006 sentencing error; restitution was ordered but the amount was reserved.
- The 2013 final order again required restitution but did not specify an amount.
- White filed a 3.800(b) motion alleging the reservation of restitution was erroneous and untimely; the trial court denied it.
- This opinion holds that a restitution hearing must occur timely; the court remands for a timely restitution determination, while allowing laches defenses at that hearing.
- Remand directs the trial court to conduct a restitution hearing as soon as practicable and addresses potential laches defenses for the victim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution must be determined timely. | White argues restitution timing was untimely and barred. | State argues restitution can be delayed when jurisdiction is reserved. | Restitution must be determined at the earliest practicable time. |
| Whether the delay in restitution determination violated Sanderson and related authorities. | White relies on Sanderson/Vasquez to challenge indefinite delay. | State maintains permissible post-sentencing determination when jurisdiction is reserved. | Delay without timely hearing violates essential requirements; remand for timely hearing. |
| Whether the case should be remanded for a restitution hearing. | White seeks a timely hearing on the amount. | State contends remand is unnecessary or limited. | Case remanded for a timely restitution hearing. |
| Whether the preservation of juristic jurisdiction allows consideration of laches at the restitution hearing. | White may raise laches as a defense at the hearing. | State may challenge or contest laches defenses differently. | Laches defenses may be asserted and considered at the restitution hearing. |
| Whether Samen states support continued delay in restitution processes. | White emphasizes delays undermine victim’s rights. | State argues delays can occur where jurisdiction is reserved. | Authorities permit delayed determination but require timely hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993) (restitution must be imposed timely; amount may be determined later if timely ordered)
- Gladfelter v. State, 604 So. 2d 929 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (reservations to determine amount permissible; must be determined earliest possible date)
- Savory v. State, 600 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (original sentence with reservation to determine amount is permissible)
- Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (trial court may determine restitution amount post-sentencing)
- Marro v. State, 803 So.2d 906 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002) (on remand, restitution may be imposed after a new hearing)