Legal Opinion
Holland v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided December 19, 1990No. 89-851PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ROGERS, Chief Judge:
Appellant Paul Holland appeals from the denial of his motion pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-110 (1981) on the principal grounds that the trial judge accepted his guilty plea without warning him that he might be forced to pay restitution to the victim and thereafter the court imposed excessive restitution. We agree that the trial judge erred by not warning appellant of possible restitution as a part of his sentence. However, because appellant has failed to show manifest injustice, reversal is not warranted on this ground. Further, his excessiveness claim is time barred.…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- McCarthy v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- United States v. TimmreckSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Douglas Fruchtman v. Frank Kenton, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- United States v. WashingtonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1965
- Head v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1985
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Eldridge v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1992
- Goodall v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
- Wilson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1991
- Williams v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1995
- State v. TuialiiHawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals · 2009
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.