LUIS A. VELEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Appellant's challenge to restitution imposed as part of guilty plea was affirmed because he failed to preserve the issue for appeal by not objecting at sentencing or filing a timely motion to correct sentence.
An appellant who fails to object to restitution at sentencing or file a timely motion to correct sentence cannot raise the restitution issue on direct appeal.
[1] An appellant who enters a guilty plea and fails to object to restitution at sentencing or file a timely motion to correct sentence waives appellate review of the restitut…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant pleaded guilty to burglary and grand theft as a habitual offender and was sentenced to one year and one day in prison with $1,500 restitutio…
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 Waiver Of Appellate Review cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant entered a plea of guilty to charges of burglary and grand theft. Pursuant to the terms of the plea agreement, which appellant acknowledged orally and in writing that he understood, appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender to a prison term of one year and a day and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $1,500. Appellant now contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing restitution because there was no evidence of permanent loss or damage to the item, a nail gun, which appellant attempted to steal but dropped while fleeing the scene. For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Appellant neither objected to the imposition of restitution at the time of sentencing nor expressly reserved the right to appeal the restitution order upon entry of his plea. Furthermore, appellant did not move to withdraw his plea or seek deletion of the restitution requirement in a timely motion to correct sentence. Because appellant failed to properly preserve this issue for our review, we are precluded from considering it on direct appeal. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(B) and 9.140(d); § 924.051(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). See also Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)(ere banc); Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).
AFFIRMED.
GUNTHER, FARMER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fillyaw v. State, 734 So. 2d 1136 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999)…plea, and the sentence is not illegal on its' face. Appellant failed to preserve the restitution isshe for review hy objecting below or filing a motion to correct pursuant to Rule 3.800(b), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. See Velez v. State, 725 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)(hold-ing restitution issue was not preserved for appeal where appellant neither objected at sentencing nor filed a motion to .correct sentence pursuant to Florida.. Rule of Criminal Procedure); Lorenzana v. State, 717 So. 2d 119…
-
Walker v. State, 735 So. 2d 1291 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.140(b)(2)(B)(ii); Velez v. State, 725 So. 2d 1280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Jones v. State, 708 So. 2d 337 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998).…
Authorities Cited
- Dameion Harriel v. State, 710 So. 2d 102 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)
- Hyden v. State, 715 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)