L.O. v. State

I do not agree with the majority that the record indicates that restitution was ordered within sixty days of the judgment. I do agree with the Third District that the trial court timely reserved jurisdiction:

The statements made at the February trial alerted L.O. and his counsel to the fact that L.O. would be responsible for restitution. At the March hearing, this obligation was confirmed and the determination of amount postponed. Relying on [State v. Sanderson, 625 So.2d 471 (Fla.1993) ], as well as C.A.[v. State, 685 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ], we reject defendant’s claim that the trial…