### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

JOHN ALLISON HARRIS, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D19

- 3777

[ January 6, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County; Dan L. Vaughn, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312018CF000864A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Tatjana Ostapoff, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeanine Germanowicz,

Assistan t Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Jason Allison Harris appeals his judgment of conviction and sentence for the possession of cocaine and the sale or delivery of cocaine within 1

, 000 feet of a place of worship

. He raises one argument regarding his conviction which we

affirm without further comment. Harris also argues that the trial court erred in assessing a cost at sentencing without first orally pronouncing that cost. We agree and reverse and remand on that issue

.

At sentencing, Harris was ordered to pay $200 .00 to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement’s (“FDLE’s”) O perating Trust F und. However, the trial court did not orally pronounce that cost at the sentencing hearing. After filing an appeal of his conviction, Harris filed a motion to correct sentencing error regarding the $200 .00 FDLE cost. Although the State conceded e rror, the trial

court did not rule on Harris’s motion within sixty days. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). This appeal followed.

“This c ourt reviews a motion to correct a sentencing error de novo.” Guadagno

v. State , 291 So. 3d 962, 962 (Fla. 4th DC A 2020)

.Pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (2019), a trial court may impose a cost of $100 .00 to be paid to the FDLE ’s Operating Trust Fund when a defendant “pleads guilty or nolo contender e to, or is convicted of, a violation of any provision of chapters 775

- 896.” This cost becomes mandatory “if the services of a local county

- operated crime laboratory

. . . are used in connection with the investigation ” of the defendant’s crime. § 938.055, Fla. Stat. (2019) (utilizing the word “shall” when mentioning this cost ). As such, the trial court must impose a $100 .00 cost pursuant to section 938.055 when the State uses a

crime lab in its investigation

. See Taylor v. State , 214 So. 3d 700 , 700 (Fla . 4th DCA 2017)

. A ny cost s imposed in addition to that amount are discretionary and

should be stricken if not orally pronounced. See id. (striking the imposition of an additional, but unannounced, $66.80 imposed along with the mandatory $100 .00 FDLE cost)

.

T he State properly concedes error on this point

. The $200 .00 FDLE cost must be stricken because it was not orally pronounced by the trial court at the sentencing hearing

. See id. On remand, we order the trial court to revise the sentencing order to impose only the mandatory $100 .00 amount because the

services of a local crime lab were used to investigate Harris’s case

. See id. Appellant need not be present when the trial court makes this ministerial

correction. See Ayos v. State , 275 So. 3d 178, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)

.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with instructions.

G ERBER
, K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., and N UTT

, J AMES

, Associate Judge, concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.