Faurisma v. State

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT KONTNEY FAURISMA, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D10-179 Opinion filed June 1, 2011. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Ronald Ficarrotta, Judge. James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Alisa Smith, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Kontney Faurisma appeals three orders granting restitution. He argues that the trial court erred in entering the restitution orders without providing him with notice, a hearing, or an opportunity to object. The State agrees that the trial court erred. See Iaconetti v. State, 869 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). Mr. Faurisma preserved this issue for appeal by filing a motion to correct a sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). However, the trial court did not rule on the motion within sixty days so it is deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1). Because the trial court should have held a hearing, required the State to prove the appropriate amount of restitution, and given Mr. Faurisma notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard, we must reverse the orders and remand for a de novo restitution hearing. See § 775.089(7), Fla. Stat. (2009); Iaconetti, 869 So. 2d at 700. Reversed and remanded. ALTENBERND, KELLY, and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur. -2-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.