Court Opinion

ID: 9959754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:02:59.29548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:54.008704
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                  _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-2643
                 LT Case No. 2021-CF-000099-A
                 _____________________________

ROBERT A. SCHWEICKERT, JR.,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                  _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County.
Richard A. Howard, Judge.

Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., Raiford, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Douglas T.
Squire, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

                           April 12, 2024

HARRIS, J.

     Appellant, Robert A. Schweickert, Jr., appeals the trial court’s
restitution order, arguing the court did not have jurisdiction to
hold a restitution hearing and order restitution while his appeal
was pending. We agree, strike the restitution order and remand
for the trial court to conduct another hearing.
     The State charged Appellant with four counts of aggravated
animal cruelty and twenty-three counts of cruelty to animals.
Appellant rejected the State’s plea offer but accepted the trial
court’s disposition of a four-year cap on incarceration in exchange
for a no contest plea. The State noted at the plea hearing it would
be seeking $128,090.54 in restitution. Appellant requested a
hearing on the restitution amount. On July 12, 2022, the court
sentenced Appellant to four years in the Department of
Corrections on the four counts of aggravated animal cruelty and
reserved on the restitution amount.

     Appellant appealed his judgment and sentence, and on
October 4, 2022, while his appeal was pending, the court conducted
a restitution hearing, during which Appellant stipulated to the
original judgment amount from his civil case ($128,090.54) as the
amount of restitution in his criminal case.

     On appeal, Appellant argues the restitution order should be
vacated because the trial court was without jurisdiction to conduct
the hearing and enter the order. Once a notice of appeal has been
filed, a trial court lacks jurisdiction to hold a restitution hearing or
enter an order of restitution, even if it reserves jurisdiction only as
to the amount. See Kleintank v. State, 178 So. 3d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA
2015); Pearson v. State, 686 So. 2d 721, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997).
The State properly concedes that the court lacked jurisdiction at
the time it held the hearing and entered the restitution order.

     Accordingly, we strike the restitution order and remand for
the trial court to conduct another restitution hearing and again
impose restitution. See Kleintank, 178 So. 3d at 15; Smith v. State,
39 So. 3d 471, 472 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

    Restitution Order STRICKEN and REMANDED.

JAY and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                                   2
          _____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
           _____________________________

                       3