Court Opinion

ID: 9904574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 16:40:55.151766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:09.396454
License: Public Domain

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
                      FIFTH DISTRICT

                                    NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
                                    FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
                                    DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

JAVAUGHN SKINKLE,

           Appellant,

v.                                       Case No. 5D21-2504
                                         LT Case No. 2021-CF-101477

STATE OF FLORIDA,

          Appellee.
________________________________/

Opinion filed May 20, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court
for Volusia County,
James R. Clayton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender,
and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach,
for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General,
Tallahassee, and Kristen L.
Davenport, Assistant   Attorney
General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

PER CURIAM.
       In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Javaughn Skinkle’s judgment and

sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative

costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a

request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla.

2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant

liable for those costs . . . .” (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court

to enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In

all other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084

(Fla. 2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation

requirement of rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).

       AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

       1
           Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

                                        2