Walls v. State
808 So. 2d 262, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1268, 2002 WL 460276
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Walls v. State. Read the opinion of the Court — 765 So. 2d 733 →
Opinion
Jimmy L. Walls challenges the denial of his motion objecting to restitution costs. The trial court summarily denied the motion on the basis that Walls should have raised this issue on direct appeal.
We do not agree that errors in restitution orders are not cognizable in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b) motions. See Amendments to Fla. R. of Crim. P. S. 111(e) & 3.800 & Fla. R. of App. P. 9.020(h), 9.140, & 9.600, 761 So.2d 1015, 1019 (Fla.2000). However, we affirm because Walls’ motion was untimely and facially insufficient.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Walls v. State, 808 So. 2d 262, 2002 Fla. App. LEXIS 1268, 2002 WL 460276 (Fla. Ct. App. 2002).
808 So. 2d 262 (Walls v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Amendments to Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure 3.111(e) & 3.800
761 So. 2d 1015 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1999)