GRIMACE v. STATE (2025)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Michael GRIMACE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D23-1885

Decided: April 02, 2025

Before LOGUE, C.J., and SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

Michael Grimace, in proper person. Charles T. Martin, Jr., Assistant General Counsel (Tallahassee), for appellee Florida Department of Corrections.

Affirmed. See § 960.292(2), Fla. Stat. (1999) (“Upon motion by the state, upon petition of the local subdivision, crime victim, or aggrieved party, or on its own motion, the court in which the convicted offender is convicted shall enter civil restitution lien orders in favor of crime victims, the state, its local subdivisions, and other aggrieved parties. The court shall retain continuing jurisdiction over the convicted offender for the sole purpose of entering civil restitution lien orders.”); Smith v. Fla. Dep't of Corr., 27 So. 3d 124, 128 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (recognizing that the statute of limitations for civil actions brought by the state “does not affect the state's ability to pursue a restitution lien through the sentencing court under section 960.292(2)”); Rodriguez v. State, 899 So. 2d 471, 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (observing that the sentencing court retains jurisdiction over the defendant post-sentencing to enter a civil restitution lien order).

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network