Court Opinion

ID: 9414669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 15:05:04.209997+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:56.313257
License: Public Domain

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 Anders 1 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).
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.

                                    2
   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 post-
Richards, 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.

                           *          *        *

                                      3
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                                  4