jurisdiction to modify her probation in January, 1996, because the attempted modification occurred more than sixty days after imposition of the June sentence. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b) (“A court may reduce or modify to include any of the provisions of chapter 948, Florida Statutes, a legal sentence imposed by it within 60 days after such imposition, ... ”); State v. Nichols, 629 So.2d 970 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (trial court loses jurisdiction to modify sentence 60 days after sentence is imposed). The sentence had been rendered, the time for rehearing had passed, and more than 60 days had elapsed between imposition of the June sentence and the January attempt to modify that sentence. Thus, the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence. See Troupe v. Rowe, 283 So.2d 857 (Fla.1973) (<HOLDING>); Baker v. State, 380 So.2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA
holding that after sentence was imposed and no further hearing was contemplated the matter was ended for all purposes holding that minnesota stay of imposition is sentence for purposes of federal sentencing guidelines even if no term of probation was imposed holding that where an objection was made and trial courts ruling was treated as conclusive by state and defense counsel there was no need for further objections when evidence was presented to jury holding that jurys original verdict of guilty without intent and recommend mere was an acquittal such that after it was presented to an officer of the court and the court the trial had ended  and the trial court was without authority to return the jury to its room for any further action holding that no sentence is imposed in the case of a sis