HENRY B. KOONTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1995-12-01
No. 95-2604
PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J„ concur., SHARP, W., J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion.
666 So. 2d 173 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1995)

Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

PETERSON, C.J., and ANTOON, J„ concur. SHARP, W., J., concurs in part; dissents in part, with opinion. SHARP, W., Judge, dissenting in part and concurring in part.

I agree the trial court’s summary denial of Koontz’s motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850 should be affirmed on all grounds, except for one. With regard to that ground, I would remand to the trial court for further proceedings, including the attachment of portions of the sentencing hearing which conclusively refute Koontz’s argument that the trial court imposed restitution on him without notice or without an opportunity to object. See Dur-den v. State, 582 So. 2d 1256 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991).


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw