5th District Court of Appeal
Case No. 5D19-2478
Jul 2020

David Weiker vs. State of Florida

Dissent

No items found.

Did Not Participate

No items found.

Case Details

Decision

This unanimous decision partly affirms and partly reverses the lower court's ruling on Weiker's 4 claims of ineffective counsel. The ruling reads:

"In his fourth claim, Weiker asserted that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object or stipulating to restitution in the amount of $22,862,351.99. We agree and reverse for the trial court to conduct a restitution hearing."

For the first claim, they agree with the lower court's ruling without further details. The lower court did not rule on claims 2 and 3 at all. This Court is sending these claims back with instructions that the lower court must make these decisions.

In claim 4, Weiker claimed his lawyer was ineffective because they did not challenge the restitution amount in his sentence. The lower court rejected his argument because his lawyer did not object at the time. However, Weiker is legally allowed to raise the issue after conviction. The amount calculated included items unrelated to Weiker's convictions. An objection would have had an impact on the amount of restitution owed. This Court reversed the lower court's decision and granted a new restitution hearing.

Read the full ruling at 5cda.org

Background

Weiker was the CEO of Platinum Properties. The company was supposed to build homes in Florida. Money was taken for the homes but they were never built. The money appears to have been used for personal use. Weiker was convicted of organized fraud, and 29 counts of communications fraud. He was sentenced to 12 years in prison and to pay $22.8 million in restitution.

In 2014, he appealed his convictions and sentences and they were affirmed. More recently, he filed claims of ineffective counsel in circuit court. They disagreed.

Related Articles

Original Decision: ($) Developer sentenced to 12 years in prison for $24 million fraud | Orlando Sentinel | 3/2013

Top of Case Details