Court Opinion

ID: 9943431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 16:04:57.154008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:47:00.117694
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D23-2734
                  LT Case No. 2023-CF-000078
                 _____________________________

ELLIOTT ANDERSON,

    Appellant,

    v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On Appeal from the Circuit Court for St. Johns County.
R. Lee Smith, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Ali L. Hansen, Assistant
Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R.
Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for
Appellee.

                       February 23, 2024

PER CURIAM.

    In this Anders appeal, 1 we affirm the judgment and sentence
imposed by the trial court following Appellant’s admission to

    1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
violating his probation. However, we remand for the correction of
errors in the order of revocation of probation and in the final
judgment assessing costs following the violation of probation
(“VOP”) proceeding.

     First, the order revoking probation included that Appellant
also violated condition 9 of his probation. Appellant did not admit
to, nor did the trial court orally announce, a condition 9 violation.
We therefore remand for the entry of a corrected order that does
not show the condition 9 violation. See Fletcher v. State, 286 So.
3d 923, 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (affirming conviction and sentence
following the appellant’s admission to violating probation but
remanding for the entry of a corrected order of revocation of
probation to reflect those conditions the appellant admitted to
violating).

     Second, the cost judgment entered following the violation of
probation proceeding errantly includes a $352 assessment under
section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2022). The trial court is directed
to enter an amended VOP cost judgment that does not include this
assessment.

      Third, in addition to assessing certain costs incurred due to
the VOP proceeding, the VOP cost judgment reassesses the $100
cost of prosecution, $100 cost of indigency defense, and $50 public
defender’s application fee previously imposed when Appellant was
first sentenced. We direct that the trial court amend the VOP cost
judgment to delete these duplicative costs. See Chivese v. State,
295 So. 3d 324, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).

    Lastly, the VOP judgment for costs includes a $100 cost of
investigation assessment that was not requested in the VOP
proceeding. Pursuant to Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla.
2020), this cost is not to be included in the amended cost judgment.

     AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions to issue an amended
cost judgment and a corrected order of revocation of probation
consistent with this opinion.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

                                 2
          _____________________________

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

                       3