Sang Van NGUYEN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Florida, Appellee.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender; Fred Parker Bingham, II, Asst. Public Defender, Tallahassee, for appellant.
Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Giselle Lylen Rivera, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In these two direct criminal appeals, which we consolidate, appellant raises four issues: (1) whether, in circuit court case number 93-873, the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of principal to burglary of a dwelling; (2) whether the order revoking his probation in circuit court case number 92-2525 must be corrected to reflect that he was found to have violated his probation, rather than that he "pled nolo contendere," and expressly to set forth the conditions of probation found to have been violated, as reflected in the hearing transcript; (3) whether the charges, costs and fees imposed in circuit court case number 92-2525 were improperly assessed on a per count, rather than on a per case, basis, and included costs for which no statutory authority was cited; and (4) whether, in circuit court case number 93-873, after a notice of appeal had been filed, the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct a restitution hearing and to enter an order regarding restitution.
We conclude that there was ample evidence to support the jury's verdict on the charge of principal to burglary of a dwelling in circuit court case number 93-873. Accordingly, we affirm appellant's conviction without further discussion.
We also affirm the order revoking appellant's probation, and again placing him on probation, in circuit court case number 92-2525. However, on remand, we direct the trial court to enter an amended order reflecting that appellant was found to have violated the terms of his probation, rather than that he "pled nolo contendere," and expressly setting forth the condition or conditions found to have been violated, as reflected by the transcript of the hearing. We reverse the orders in that case imposing charges, costs and fees on a per count basis. On remand, the trial court is directed to impose the charges, costs and fees on a per case basis. Rocker v. State,
Finally, while the trial court properly reserved jurisdiction to consider restitution in circuit court case number 93-873, the hearing was held, and the order entered, after a notice of appeal had been filed. Because the notice of appeal had been filed before the restitution hearing was held, the hearing and order entered thereafter are without effect. Skaggs v. State,
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and LAWRENCE, JJ. concur.