Case Name: Dante Rashad MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2016-12-09
Citations: 206 So.3d 154
Docket Number: Case No. 2D14-4165
Parties: Dante Rashad MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Third Series
Volume: 206
Pages: 154–155

Head Matter:
Dante Rashad MORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Case No. 2D14-4165
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
December 9, 2016
Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Terrence E. Kehoe, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Wendy Buffington, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

Opinion:
BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
Appellant's motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc is denied; the motion for written opinion is granted. The prior opinion dated July 29, 2016, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is issued in its place. No further motions for rehearing will be entertained.
PER CURIAM.
Dante Rashad Morris appeals his judgments and sentences for attempted felony murder and attempted armed robbery. We affirm Mr. Morris's judgments without comment. We also affirm his sentences, but we remand his case for the trial court to enter a correct order on the costs Mr. Morris is required to pay.
Pursuant to a motion to correct sentencing error, see Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b), the trial court entered an order directing that the cost of prosecution was limited to $100 and that any Florida Department of Corrections (FDOC) supervision costs should be stricken because Mr. Morris was not placed on supervision. However, as Mr. Morris argues, and the State correctly concedes, the amended costs order that was subsequently filed still obligates him to pay $100 for the "Additional" cost of prosecution and to pay the FDOC costs.
In denying Mr. Morris' rule 3.800(b) motion, the trial court also rejected Mr. Morris' argument that pursuant to Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675 (Fla. 2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 136 S.Ct. 1455, 194 L.Ed.2d 552 (2016), he was entitled to resentencing under the framework established by chapter 2014-220, Laws of Florida. We affirm that aspect of the trial court's order on the authority of this court's decision in Williams v. State, 197 So.3d 569 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016). But see Peterson v. State, 193 So.3d 1034 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016).
Judgments and sentences affirmed; remanded for trial court to file corrected cost order.
CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and KELLY, JJ., Concur.