Opinion ID: 2485807
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Order of Restitution

Text: We approve, however, the portion of the decision that affirmed the order of restitution. Here, as above, Mapp complains of an error that the Second District found not to be a sentencing error cognizable under rule 3.800(b). See Mapp, 18 So.3d at 35-36. Specifically, the Second District noted that at the close of evidence from the victims about their monetary losses, defense counsel did not object to what may have been insufficient evidence. Id. at 36. The court affirmed the order of restitution as originally imposed because any error in [it] has not been reserved for appellate review. Id. at 37. We agree. The error complained of here is not a sentencing error, but is one based on the sufficiency and credibility of the evidence that requires factual determination. Accordingly, it is not cognizable under rule 3.800(b).