DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMAAL DESROSIERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D18-2547

[December 11, 2019]

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

Lucie County; Gary L. Sweet, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562017CF002261A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Jessica A. De Vera, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven 

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

PER CURIAM.

Jamaal Desrosiers appeals the trial court’s denial of his Florida Rule of 

Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error for drugrelated charges. Desrosiers argues he is entitled to be resentenced 

because of a scoresheet error and that the case should be remanded to 

correct cost errors. We find the scoresheet error harmless but remand the 

case to the trial court to make the requisite cost corrections. 

During the sentencing hearing, Desrosiers requested a sentence of four 

years to run concurrently with a prior sentence. The scoresheet used by 

the trial court erroneously included a prior count scored at .2 points, thus 

increasing Desrosiers’ lowest permissible sentence from 20.315 months to 

20.175 months. The trial court sentenced Desrosiers to six years in prison 

to run concurrently with his prior sentence. The trial court then imposed 

costs totaling $793.00: $418.00 in court costs, $200.00 in prosecution 

costs, $50.00 in investigatory costs, and $125.00 for the county drug 

abuse trust fund. The trial court did not make any factual findings 

regarding these costs and the State did not make any request that these 

costs be imposed. 
2

After he was sentenced, Desrosiers filed a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion for 

resentencing with the trial court, alleging the trial court relied on an 

incorrect scoresheet and requesting the discretionary costs be struck

because the State had not requested them. The trial court did not timely 

enter an order on the motion and it was deemed denied.1 On appeal, the 

State concedes that the above costs were assessed in error and agrees that

the case should be remanded to assess appropriate costs but maintains

that the scoresheet error was harmless. 

A. Scoresheet Error

“A defendant who illustrates an erroneous imposition of points on his 

scoresheet is entitled to have the errors corrected. However, that 

defendant is not entitled to resentencing if the errors were harmless.” 

Zelaya v. State, 257 So. 3d 493, 497 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (citations 

omitted). “[T]he error ‘is harmless if the record conclusively shows that 

the trial court would have imposed the same sentence using a correct 

scoresheet.’” Somps v. State, 183 So. 3d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)

(quoting Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864, 870-71 (Fla. 2010)). 

Here, Desrosiers has shown and the State has conceded that the 

scoresheet was defective. However, the error is harmless because 

Desrosiers requested a four-year prison sentence, which amounts to more 

than 20.325 months. See Adlington v. State, 931 So. 2d 1040, 1042 (4th 

DCA 2006). It follows that the trial court would have imposed the same 

sentence even with a corrected scoresheet because Desrosiers agreed that 

his sentence should have been at least four years. Although the error is 

harmless, Desrosiers remains entitled to have this scoresheet error 

corrected on remand. See Zelaya, 257 So. 3d at 497.

B. Court Costs

In a criminal case, a trial courts must assess a $100.00 fee in 

prosecution costs and a $225.00 fee where the defendant is convicted of a 

felony. See §§ 938.27(8), 938.05(1), Fla. Stat. (2017). Trial courts may 

impose discretionary costs above these amounts, but where the trial court

fails to make the appropriate factual findings regarding these costs, these 

fees will be reduced to the mandatory fee amounts. See Brown v. State, 

658 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). On remand, courts may 

reimpose discretionary costs if they are supported by the requisite factual 

1 See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(1)(B). 
3

findings. See id.; accord Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 

2018). 

In drug cases, the trial court may assess fees for the county drug abuse 

trust fund. See § 938.23, Fla. Stat. (2017). However, the court must 

consider the defendant’s ability to pay prior to assessing these fees. See 

Gunn v. State, 818 So. 2d 681, 681 (Fla. 4th DCA). These costs may be 

reimposed on remand if the trial court finds that the defendant has the 

ability to pay. See id.

Trial courts may impose investigatory costs, but only when requested 

by the State or agency involved. See Chambers v. State, 217 So. 3d 210, 

214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017). Trial courts cannot impose investigative costs 

“where the record does not demonstrate that the [S]tate requested 

reimbursements for these costs.” Id. If these costs are not requested by 

the State, they must be stricken and cannot be imposed on remand. See 

id.

Desrosiers’ case must be remanded because the trial court failed to 

make any factual findings when imposing costs. On remand, the trial 

court must impose the mandatory $100.00 fee in prosecution costs and 

the $225.00 fee in court costs. See §§ 938.27(8), 938.05(1), Fla. Stat.

(2017). The trial court may impose further costs if it makes appropriate 

factual findings to support the imposition of those costs. See Brown, 658 

So. 2d at 1059; Hogle, 250 So. 3d at 181. The trial court may also 

reimpose fees for the county drug abuse trust fund if it finds Desrosiers 

has the ability to pay. See Gunn, 818 So. 2d at 681. However, the trial 

court may not reimpose investigatory costs because the State did not 

request them below. See Chambers, 217 So. 3d at 214. 

Affirmed and remanded with instructions.

GROSS, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.