State v. MartinState v. Martin
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
PER CURIAM.
Appellee moves to dismiss this appeal, arguing that there is no statutory authority for the state to take an appeal from the order entered by the trial court. We agree that dismissal is proper.
Appellee argues that a court cannot enter a sentencing order when it has been divested of jurisdiction. The failure to impose restitution did not make the sentence an illegal one, which would be subject to correction at any time. Instead, the failure to order restitution must be brought to the attention of the trial court and corrected within 60 days. See, State v. Butz, 568 So.2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990);
The order of the trial court which struck the restitution requirement is not an order which may be appealed by the state pursuant to
This appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
SHIVERS, C.J., and ALLEN and WOLF, JJ., concur.