FREDDIE L. KELLY v. STATE OF FLORIDA ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •         DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
    FOURTH DISTRICT
    FREDDIE L. KELLY,
    Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF FLORIDA,
    Appellee.
    Nos. 4D18-1456 and 4D18-2366
    [November 6, 2019]
    Consolidated appeals from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial
    Circuit, St. Lucie County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 56-2016-
    CF-002775A and 56-2016-CF-000365A.
    Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Erika Follmer, Assistant
    Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
    Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Melynda L. Melear,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
    PER CURIAM.
    In this consolidated appeal of two criminal cases, 1 appellant raises five
    issues. We affirm on all issues but one; we reverse and remand on the
    issue of the imposed costs.
    Investigative costs imposed under section 938.27, Florida Statutes
    (2018), must be requested by the investigating agency and supported by
    evidence of the amount of the costs incurred. See Jackson v. State, 
    137 So. 3d 470
    , 472 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Appellant asserts, and the state
    concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing $50 for investigative costs
    in both cases without a request for such costs. Additionally, section
    938.27, Florida Statutes, mandates that costs of prosecution shall be set
    at “no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged,” as is the
    case here, and that “[t]he court may set a higher amount upon a showing
    1  In lower court case number 2016-CF-2775A, a jury found appellant guilty of
    battery on a law enforcement officer. In lower court case number 2016-CF-365A,
    appellant pled no contest to sale of cocaine and possession of cocaine.
    of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.” § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2018).
    Appellant asserts, and the state concedes, that the trial erred by imposing
    $200 for prosecution costs 2 in both cases as there was never a showing of
    higher costs incurred to justify costs in excess of the $100 statutorily
    required minimum. The state also concedes that the trial court erred by
    imposing the $125 fee for the county drug abuse program in the cocaine
    case when such fee was never orally pronounced at sentencing or included
    in the plea agreement.
    Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s assessment of the
    aforementioned costs and fee and remand for the trial court to (1) strike
    the $50 for investigative costs in both cases, (2) reduce the prosecution
    costs to the statutorily required minimum of $100 in both cases, and (3)
    strike the $125 fee for the county drug abuse program in the cocaine case.
    Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
    WARNER, GROSS and DAMOORGIAN, JJ., concur.
    *         *         *
    Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
    2  We note that there are discrepancies between the trial court’s oral
    pronouncement of costs and the written final judgment for costs in the battery
    case. The oral pronouncement controls. See Williams v. State, 
    957 So. 2d 600
    ,
    603 (Fla. 2007).
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-2366

Filed Date: 11/6/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/7/2019