Court Opinion

ID: 9911612
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-20 16:03:06.287181+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:52:53.917694
License: Public Domain

FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                 STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                        No. 1D2022-2952
                 _____________________________

JON ADRIAN GETZLAFF,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Escambia County.
Barry E. Dickson, Jr., Judge.

                        December 20, 2023

PER CURIAM.

    Jon Adrian Getzlaff appeals his judgment and sentence for three
counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor
criminal mischief. Getzlaff presents to this Court four issues: (i)
whether the trial court erred by denying Getzlaff’s motion for
judgment of acquittal; (ii) whether the trial court erred by
imposing a $50 cost for prosecution; (iii) whether the trial court
erred by imposing a $2 cost for criminal justice education; and (iv)
whether the trial court erred by failing to credit Getzlaff for time
served.

    As for the first issue, we affirm the trial court’s decision to
deny Getzlaff’s motion for judgment of acquittal without further
comment. Second, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of the $50
cost of prosecution. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393-94 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2023) (“[T]he State was not required to request the [] mandatory
state attorney cost before the court assessed it.”). Third, we affirm the
trial court’s imposition of the $2 cost for criminal justice education
despite the trial court citing to the wrong local ordinance in their
written order. See Malden v. State, 359 So. 3d 442, 443 n.1 (Fla.
1st DCA 2023) (“[Appellant] does not argue that the ordinance and
its $2 fine did not apply to his case, only that the court failed to
write the ordinance number in the judgment. Because there can be
no prejudice where the ordinance exists, applies to the defendant,
and lawfully imposes the fine, we affirm.”). Finally, because
Getzlaff is no longer incarcerated, he has no use for credit that
would reduce his sentence. Toomer v. State, 895 So. 2d 1256, 1257
(Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Thus, we dismiss the fourth issue on appeal
as moot. Id. at 1256.

     AFFIRMED in part and DISMISSED in part.

ROBERTS, WINOKUR, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.

                   _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, and Kathryn Lane, Assistant
Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant
State Attorney, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

                                   2