## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D 20 22

- 2823

_____________________________

R ASHA J

. C UMMINGS

,

Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA

,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Gulf County

. Devin D. Collier , Judge

.

December 20, 2023

P ER C URIAM

.

Appellant raises two issues on appeal from his judgment and sentence for fleeing and attempting to elude a law enforcement officer with high speed or reckless driving. § 316.1935(3)(a), Fla. Stat. (2021). We affirm Issue I without comment. In Issue II, App ellant argues the trial court erred in presumptively denying his motion to correct sentencing errors regarding improperly
assessed court fees and costs. We agree in part as discussed below.

Appellant argues the $100 cost of prosecution should not have
bee n assessed because it was not requested by the State at sentencing. We recently held the State is not required to request2 the mandatory cost of prosecution before the trial court may assess
this cost. See Parks v. State , 48 Fla. L. Weekly D1524 (Fla. 1st D CA August 2, 2023). We affirm the $100 cost of prosecution in the judgment and sentence.

Appellant argues that the $150 public defender assistance fee was assessed in error because there was no proof supporting a fee
more than the $100 minimum felony fee provided for in section 938.29(1)(a), Florida Statutes. We agree. Section 938.29(1)(a) is clear that, “ The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher fees or costs incurred. ” Appellant did not agree to this fee nor is there any evidence supporting the higher
fee in the record

. We reverse the $150 public defender assistance
fee and remand to the trial court to assess the correct fee.

Appellant challenges the follow ing as lacking the required
statutory citation: $3 Law Enforce ment Officer Radio System
Trust Fund and $1 per month Florida First Step. “‘ [I]t is improper to impose additional court costs without reference to statutory authority, or an explanation in the record as to what the additional
costs represent. ’ ” Williams v. State , 285 So. 3d 1003, 1005 ( F la. 1st DCA 2019) (quoting Bradshaw v. State , 638 So. 2d 1024, 1025 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)). We disagree with Appellant on the $3 Law Enforcement Officer Radio System Trust Fund as the authority for that cost, sectio n 318.18(17), Florida Statutes, was referenced in the written judgment and sentence. We affirm the $3 Law Enforcement Officer Radio System Trust Fund cost.

We agree with the State’s concession that the $1 per month Florida First Step Act fee lacks proper statutory citation. Further,

w e find no support for assessment of this fee i n the record. We also agree with the State’s concession that the $2 per month for supervision pursuant to section 948.08, Florida Statutes, appears
to be in error. We reverse the imposition of th ese fee s and remand
to the trial court for further consideration.

We A FFIRM Appellant’s conviction under section 316.1935(3)(a) , Florida Stat utes. We R EVERSE the aforementioned portions of the written judgment and sentence and R EMAND to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion.3 R OBERTS

, K ELSEY

, and W INOKUR

, JJ ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until dis position of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or

9.331

.

_____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Tyler Kemper Payne

, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Day Piotrowski, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.