DAVID DAVIS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Investigative costs are reversed due to the State's concession of error, but restitution is affirmed because the defendant was present at sentencing, agreed to the amount, and had the opportunity to be heard.
[1] The sufficiency of evidence to support a restitution order is not a sentencing error cognizable in a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion and therefore is n…
[2] A defendant's claim of lack of opportunity to be heard on restitution may be preserved through a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion, but the claim fails w…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDavid Davis pleaded guilty to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. At sentencing, the State informed Davis of the restitution amount, which he agre…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
DAVID DAVIS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-103
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed November 2, 2018
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Citrus County, Richard A. Howard, Judge.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nora Hutchinson Hall, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
David Davis appeals the order imposing investigative costs and restitution following his entry of a plea to burglary of a dwelling and grand theft. Based on the State’s concession of error, we reverse the imposition of investigative costs. However, despite the State’s concession of error regarding the imposition of restitution, we disagree and affirm.
2 When Davis entered his plea, the State informed him of the amount of restitution in his sentence, to which Davis agreed without objection. On appeal, he argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support the amount of restitution ordered and that he was not given an opportunity to be heard. Davis contends that his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motion preserved these arguments.1 Davis is only partially correct. The sufficiency of evidence to support a restitution order is not a sentencing error cognizable in a rule 3.800(b) motion, and therefore, that issue was not preserved by Davis’s motion. See Mapp v. State, 71 So. 3d 776, 778 (Fla. 2011). However, Davis’s motion did preserve his argument regarding his right to be heard. See Elmer v. State, 140 So. 3d 1132, 1137 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (noting that appellant’s claim of the lack of opportunity to be heard could have been preserved through a rule 3.800(b) motion). Ultimately, though, Davis’s argument fails because he was present at the hearing and agreed to the amount of restitution ordered; therefore, he had the opportunity to be heard and declined. Accordingly, we affirm the order of restitution.
REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, and REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., EDWARDS and HARRIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Mapp v. State, 71 So. 3d 776 (Fla. 2011)
- Elmer v. State, 140 So. 3d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)