DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

WILLIAM ALEXANDER MCNAUGHTON, III,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2458

[August 2, 2023]

Appeal from the County Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit,

Indian River County; Nicole Menz, Judge; L.T. Case No.

312022MM000917A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Luke R. Napodano, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

FORST, J.

Appellant William McNaughton, III appeals the judgment and sentence 

entered after his no contest plea. Appellate counsel filed an Anders1 brief, 

claiming no basis to challenge the judgment or sentence, but arguing the 

trial court erred in imposing several costs at Appellant’s sentencing. We 

affirm the judgment and sentence without discussion. However, as 

discussed below, we agree that the trial court erred with respect to the 

imposition of $25.00 for investigative costs and $100.00 for prosecution 

costs and thus reverse and remand with instructions. As to other costs 

and fees imposed by the court, the State sufficiently identified those costs, 

which are affirmed without discussion. See Harris v. State, 348 So. 3d 1 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2022). 

Background

Appellant entered a no contest plea to one count of misdemeanor 

battery. In the plea agreement, Appellant agreed to pay a $100.00 public 

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2

defender fee and a $53.50 public defender application fee. The State did 

not request any additional fees or costs. 

At sentencing, after accepting Appellant’s plea and adjudicating him 

guilty, the trial court further ordered Appellant to pay $25.00 in 

investigative costs and $100.00 in prosecution costs. 

Appellant then moved under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 

3.800(b)(2) to correct his sentence, arguing that the trial court erred in 

assessing these costs. He argued that investigative costs under section 

938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2022), should not have been imposed because 

the investigating agency did not request those costs. Additionally, he 

argued that prosecution costs under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes 

(2022), should have only been $50.00 because the State did not offer any 

proof to justify a greater amount.

We deem the motion denied because the trial court did not enter a 

ruling within sixty days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). This timely 

appeal follows. 

Analysis

On appeal, Appellant contends the trial court erred in (1) imposing 

investigative costs and (2) assessing prosecution costs for an amount 

greater than the $50.00 statutory minimum. See § 938.27(1), (8), Fla. 

Stat. Appellant requests that we remand with instructions to strike the 

investigative costs and reduce the prosecution costs to the statutory 

minimum. He also argues that, on remand, the State cannot request 

investigative costs or additional prosecution costs. We review a motion to 

correct sentencing error de novo. Guadagno v. State, 291 So. 3d 962, 962

(Fla. 4th DCA 2020).

As to investigative costs, our supreme court has held that investigative 

costs cannot be imposed where the State fails to request such costs before 

the judgment. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020). In 

that instance, the State is not entitled to a second opportunity to request 

investigative costs on remand because section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes

(2022), requires that the request be made before judgment is entered. 

Richards, 288 So. 3d at 576–77; see also Desrosiers v. State, 286 So. 3d 

297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Here, the State did not request investigative 

costs prior to judgment. We therefore reverse and remand with 

instructions to strike the investigative costs. Under Richards, the State 

cannot request investigative costs on remand. 
3

Turning to prosecution costs, we have explained that reversal of 

prosecution costs above the statutory minimum (here, $50.00) is 

warranted when the State fails to request a higher amount. Bartolone v. 

State, 327 So. 3d 331, 336 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021). However, even postRichards, when courts have imposed additional prosecution costs without 

request, we have remanded with instructions to either impose the 

statutory minimum “or to impose additional costs if sufficient findings are 

made.” Id. (quoting Guadagno, 291 So. 3d at 963); e.g., Rivera v. State, 

336 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (remanding for the trial court to 

either impose the minimum prosecution cost or order additional costs 

based on sufficient findings where the State “did not seek or prove” a 

higher amount before judgment); Matos v. State, 359 So. 3d 794, 798 (Fla. 

4th DCA 2023) (same).

In some cases, when the State has conceded error, we have remanded 

for imposition of the statutory minimum without qualification. See, e.g., 

Enrriquez v. State, 361 So. 3d 872, 873 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)

(instructing trial court to reduce prosecution costs to the statutory 

minimum, in part, because the State “did not request additional 

prosecution costs” but noting that the State “[did] not seek to present 

further evidence on remand for costs of prosecution”); Johnson v. State, 

354 So. 3d 547, 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023). We distinguish the present case 

because the State has not confessed error. 

We therefore reverse the $100.00 in prosecution costs and remand for 

the trial court to impose $50.00 in prosecution costs in accordance with 

section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2022), or to impose additional costs if 

sufficient findings are made. 

Conclusion

We affirm the judgment and sentence, except for the two costs errors 

discussed above. In accordance with Richards, we strike the $25.00

investigative cost, and the State is precluded from seeking this cost on 

remand. Consistent with our own precedent after Richards, we reverse the 

$100.00 prosecution cost and instruct the trial court to impose a $50.00

prosecution cost unless the State seeks and proves a greater amount. 

Rivera, 336 So. 3d at 741.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion.

CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ., concur.

* * *
4

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.