DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMIN CHAVIS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D16-1132

[May 16, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. 

Lucie County; Robert E. Belanger, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562014CF002236.

Michael Ufferman of Michael Ufferman Law Firm, P.A., Tallahassee, for 

appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allen R. Geesey, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MAY, J.

On appeal from his sentence for attempted first degree murder and two 

counts of attempted robbery, the defendant argues the trial court erred in 

sentencing him as a prison releasee reoffender (“PRR”) because the jury 

did not find that he was released from prison within three years prior to 

the present case. He also argues the trial court erred in failing to cite the 

applicable county ordinance in the cost order. We disagree with him on 

both issues and affirm.

Chapa v. State, 159 So. 3d 361 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), is dispositive on 

the PRR issue. There, we held that it is unnecessary for a jury to make 

the requisite findings for a PRR sentence. Id. at 362. Here, the trial court

found: “beyond a preponderance, probably beyond clear and convincing 

evidence that he does qualify as a prison releasee reoffender having been 

released from the Department of Corrections on November 11, 2012, and 

the offense having occurred on July 17, 2014, within three years.” This 

was sufficient to support the PRR sentence.

In his second issue, the defendant argues the court erred in imposing
2

costs without referencing the applicable county ordinance supporting the 

imposition of a $65 assessment, pursuant to section 939.185, Florida 

Statutes (2016).

In response to the defendant’s 3.800(b) motion, requesting a 

breakdown of the court costs, the trial court issued an order providing a 

detailed breakdown of the costs with citations to Florida Statutes for each 

assessment. One cost was $65 for “ADDITIONAL COSTS (BOCC) –

PROGRAMS Mandatory with Ordinance,” pursuant to section 

939.185(1)(a).

We have previously held that the trial court need not cite statutory 

authority for the imposition of costs. See Johnson v. State, 944 So. 2d 474 

(Fla. 4th DCA 2006), aff’d, 994 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2008). We now hold there 

is likewise no need to cite the ordinance for which court costs are imposed. 

That being said, the trial court cited the applicable statute. Section 

939.185(1)(a) provides that the “board of county commissioners may adopt 

by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by 

the court” after a person is found guilty of a felony.

We recognize that the First District has remanded a case for citation to 

the appropriate ordinance for costs under section 939.185. See Carter v. 

State, 173 So. 3d 1048, 1051 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015). The Second District 

has also directed that future court orders include a reference to both the 

statute and any applicable ordinance. Ayoub v. State, 901 So. 2d 311, 315

(Fla. 2d DCA 2005). And yet, another Second District opinion has affirmed 

the imposition of costs finding that reference to the statute was sufficient, 

and it was unnecessary to cite the local ordinance. See Stewart v. State, 

906 So. 2d 1128, 1129-30 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).

Here, the trial court cited the statutory authority to impose the costs, 

but did not cite the specific ordinance. In line with Johnson, this was more 

than sufficient. We affirm.

Affirmed.

TAYLOR and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.