PER CURIAM.
Joseph Farley appeals the denial of a dispositive motion to suppress. Finding no error, we affirm. See Ortiz v. State, 24 So.3d 596 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); P.B.P. v. State, 955 So.2d 618 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
We treat Farley’s motion to vacate the trial court’s order for restitution as a supplemental brief following the amendment of his notice of appeal. Although the trial court reserved jurisdiction to determine restitution, because it conducted the hearing and entered the order after a notice of appeal had been filed, that order is without effect. See Nguyen v. State, 655 So.2d 1249, 1249-50 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Upon remand, the trial court may conduct a new hearing and again impose restitution.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED.
GRIFFIN, TORPY and COHEN, JJ„ concur.