State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“trial court may properly order restitution within sixty days after failing to order restitution at sentencing and failing to reserve jurisdiction to do so.”
88 citation events (37 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kittelson v. State (fladistctapp, 2008-03-28)
Treatment trajectory · 1993 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1993 2009 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 40 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Kittelson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
trial court may properly order restitution within sixty days after failing to order restitution at sentencing and failing to reserve jurisdiction to do so.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Sandomeno
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · confidence medium
Recognizing that this statute makes restitution mandatory, the Florida Supreme Court has held “that an order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter.” Sanderson v. State, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993); see also L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155 (Fla. 1998) (reaffirming its holding in Sanderson).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Richard Allen White v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
There, we stated: In State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that an order of restitution must be imposed at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, in accordance with Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Golden Vasquez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993), the Florida Supreme Court held that an order of restitution must be imposed at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, in accordance with Section 775.089(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b).
cited Cited as authority (rule) D.A.D. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
“If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period.” State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Speer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Sanderson, 625 So.2d at 473; see also L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155 (Fla.1998); Kittelson v. State, 980 So.2d 533 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Witthaus (2×) also: Cited "see"
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period.” State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Connor v. State (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
The courts have consistently held that restitution is a mandatory part of sentencing and must be ordered at the time the sentence is imposed or within 60 days thereafter. , See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Law v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1998 · confidence medium
However, our supreme court has explained that "[i]f an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period." State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) CA v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period." State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) C.A. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · confidence medium
If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period.” State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) TWL v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The state responds that the trial court made a timely ruling to order restitution at the April 1995 disposition hearing and reserved jurisdiction merely to determine the amount of restitution, a procedure approved in Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993), State v. M.C., 666 So.2d 877 (Fla.1995) (approving holding that where trial court merely reserved jurisdiction on question of restitution at hearing and ordered restitution more than 60 days later, orders of restitution had to be reversed), and State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472-73 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) T.W.L. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · confidence medium
The state responds that the trial court made a timely ruling to order restitution at the April 1995 disposition hearing and reserved jurisdiction merely to determine the amount of restitution, a procedure approved in Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993), State v. M.C., 666 So.2d 877 (Fla.1995) (approving holding that where trial court merely reserved jurisdiction on question of restitution at hearing and ordered restitution more than 60 days later, orders of restitution had to be reversed), and State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472-73 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Riley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · confidence medium
State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472-73 (Fla. 1993).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) McLemore v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
The Florida Supreme Court has also recognized that "an order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter." State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993).
cited Cited "see" JOSEPH SILKY v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So. 2d 471, 473 (Fla. 1993).
discussed Cited "see" State v. MM
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); see also L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155 , 157 (Fla.1998) (reaffirming holding in Sanderson ); Ridley v. State, 890 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that if a court orders restitution at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, the court can reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period).
discussed Cited "see" State v. M.M.
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); see also L.O. v. State, 718 So.2d 155 , 157 (Fla.1998) (reaffirming holding in Sanderson); Ridley v. State, 890 So.2d 1261, 1262 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (explaining that if a court orders restitution at sentencing or within sixty days thereafter, the court can reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period).
discussed Cited "see" L'HEUREUX v. State (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2007 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 , 473 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited "see" Lawson v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 , 473 (Fla.1993) (stating order of restitution must be imposed at time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter); Selwyn v. State, 903 So.2d 361, 362 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (stating trial court is required to enter order imposing restitution within sixty days of sentencing even if it determines amount of restitution at later date); State v. Hiscox, 677 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (holding sixty days after sentencing the trial court loses jurisdiction to enter an order imposing restitution); Ridley v. State, 890 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (holding tri…
cited Cited "see" Ely v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" Albury v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 472, 473 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" LO v. State
Fla. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" L.O. v. State
Fla. · 1998 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" L.O. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" LO v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" Albertie v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" Conner v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" State v. Hitchmon
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471, 473 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" Strayer v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); State v. Hiscox, 677 So.2d 862 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" State v. Hiscox
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sanderson, *863 625 So.2d at 473 .
cited Cited "see" L.N.H. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" Valdez v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993); Crosby v. State, 637 So.2d 341 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994).
discussed Cited "see" Rada v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993) (an order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter and court can determine amount beyond the sixty day period, if an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner).
cited Cited "see" C.B. v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see" CB v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." McClintock v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2008 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Kiriazes v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Syverson v. State, 659 So.2d 1344 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995); see also State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Smallwood v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993) (holding that if order of restitution has been entered in timely manner, the court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Scott v. State
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla. 1993).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE of Florida, Petitioner,
v.
Rickey Faye SANDERSON, Respondent.
81454.
Supreme Court of Florida.
Oct 7, 1993.
625 So. 2d 471
McDonald.
Cited by 45 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 66%
Citer courts: District Court of Appeal of Fl… (1)

[*472] Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen. and Dale E. Tarpley and Peggy A. Quince, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tampa, for petitioner.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender and Cecilia A. Traina, Asst. Public Defender, Tenth Judicial Circuit, Bartow, for respondent.

McDONALD, Justice.

We review State v. Sanderson, 615 So.2d 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993), because of conflict with Savory v. State, 600 So.2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), and Smith v. State, 589 So.2d 387 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). We have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution, and quash the decision under review.

On May 17, 1991 Sanderson pled guilty to one count of grand theft, and the court sentenced him to six months' imprisonment to be followed by one year's probation and ordered that Sanderson pay restitution to the victim. A hearing on the state's motion to determine the amount of restitution was set for June 20, 1991. Because the victim could not attend that hearing and Sanderson would not consent to the amount of restitution requested by the state, the state asked for a continuance. The court granted the continuance, conditioned on the state's filing for a second restitution hearing within sixty days of sentencing. The state filed its second notice of hearing on June 25, 1995, and the second restitution hearing was set for August 8, 1991. On that date the defense objected that it was more than sixty days after May 17th and, therefore, untimely. The trial court agreed and held that unless a restitution hearing is held within sixty days of sentencing the court loses jurisdiction to determine the amount of restitution. The state petitioned the district court for a writ of common law certiorari, which that court denied.

Subsection 775.089(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1991), provides that "the court shall order the defendant to make restitution to the victim for damage or loss caused directly by the defendant's offense." Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) provides that a legal sentence may be reduced or modified within sixty days after that sentence is imposed. Several district courts, including the instant one, have read rule 3.800(b) to mean that the trial court must determine the amount of restitution within sixty days of imposing sentence or it will lose jurisdiction. E.g., Weaver v. State, 588 So.2d 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); McLaughlin v. State, 573 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991); State v. Butz, 568 So.2d 537 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). In other cases, however, the courts have affirmed amounts for restitution determined more than sixty days after imposition of sentence. E.g., Savory; Fairweather v. State, 596 So.2d 1276 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); Smith; Weckerle v. State, 579 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); McCaskill v. State, 520 So.2d 664 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Villarreal v. State, 516 So.2d 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987). This Court recently agreed with the latter line of cases: "Because restitution was made an original condition of the probation, the court could properly determine the amount of restitution at a later date. We do not construe rule 3.800 as requiring this to be done within sixty days." Gladfelter v. State, 618 So.2d 1364, 1365 (Fla. 1993).

Here, both the trial and district courts, contrary to Gladfelter and the line of cases it supports, held that everything concerning restitution must be finalized within sixty days of imposing sentence. We hold,[*473] however, that an order of restitution must be imposed at the time of sentencing or within sixty days thereafter. If an order of restitution has been entered in a timely manner, a court can determine the amount of restitution beyond the sixty-day period. We assume that a trial court will determine the amount of restitution at the earliest possible date. We approve Savory and Smith, quash the decision under review, and direct the district court to grant the state's petition and reverse the trial court's ruling.

It is so ordered.

BARKETT, C.J., and OVERTON, SHAW, GRIMES, KOGAN and HARDING, JJ., concur.