From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Walker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 29, 1994
647 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Summary

concluding that district court of appeal lacks jurisdiction to review oral ruling of trial court that was never reduced to writing and was thus not "rendered"

Summary of this case from Iland v. State

Opinion

No. 93-3646.

November 29, 1994.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Bay County, Clinton E. Foster, J.

Angela L. Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., William J. Bakstran, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.


In this direct criminal appeal, appellant raises three issues: (1) whether the trial court erred when it denied his motion to withdraw his plea; (2) whether the sentence imposed is an illegal departure sentence; and (3) whether the trial court erred when it ordered the payment of restitution without determining whether he had the ability to pay.

We affirm the denial of appellant's motion to withdraw his plea. The motion was not presented until after sentence had been imposed, and appellant failed to establish that allowing him to withdraw his plea would correct a "manifest injustice." Williams v. State, 316 So.2d 267 (Fla. 1975).

We reverse appellant's sentence to one year in county jail, followed by one year on community control and ten years on probation, and remand for resentencing. Subsequent to the imposition of appellant's sentence, the supreme court has held that imposition of any combination of county jail time, community control and incarceration when the sentencing guidelines call for a nonstate prison sanction results in a departure sentence, and requires that written reasons be given. State v. Davis, 630 So.2d 1059 (Fla. 1994). It is apparent that the trial court was unaware that the sentence imposed constituted a departure and, therefore, did not provide any written reasons.

Finally, we conclude that we lack jurisdiction to address appellant's challenge to the trial court's order that he pay restitution. That order was made from the bench. However, it does not appear that it was ever reduced to writing and, thus, "rendered." Fla.R.App.P. 9.020(g). See Owens v. State, 579 So.2d 311 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Hart v. State, 516 So.2d 58 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987).

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.

WOLF, WEBSTER and MICKLE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Walker v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Nov 29, 1994
647 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

concluding that district court of appeal lacks jurisdiction to review oral ruling of trial court that was never reduced to writing and was thus not "rendered"

Summary of this case from Iland v. State

concluding the district court lacks jurisdiction to review oral order that was made from the bench where order was never reduced to writing and thus not "rendered"

Summary of this case from Connor v. State
Case details for

Walker v. State

Case Details

Full title:MARQUIS D. WALKER, APPELLANT, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Nov 29, 1994

Citations

647 So. 2d 262 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1994)

Citing Cases

Peterson v. State

Although orally pronounced, the order to pay restitution was not reduced to writing. See Walker v. State, 647…

Iland v. State

DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. See Johnston v. State, 202 So.3d 976, 976 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016) ("[T]he…