JONATHAN PRIVE
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Jonathan Prive appeals his judgment and sentence in an Anders appeal. The appellate court affirmed the conviction and sentence but remanded to strike duplicative and erroneous costs imposed on the defendant.
The appellate court affirmed the underlying judgment and sentence but held that certain costs must be struck: (1) the duplicative $100 costs of prosecution imposed under section 938.27(8) based on a city ordinance, because no showing of higher costs incurred was made, and (2) the costs imposed under section 318.18(11)(b) because Prive was not charged with a traffic infraction.
“Section 938.27, however, does not permit local governments to impose higher standard costs of prosecution. Rather, it authorizes the standard costs ($50 for misdemeanors, $100 for felonies), and higher amounts "upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred."”
Establishes the legal standard for when higher prosecution costs can be imposed and that the trial court erred by not making the required showing
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJonathan Prive was convicted and sentenced by the Circuit Court for Brevard County. The trial court imposed costs in the judgment that included: (1) t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Costs Of Prosecution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders 1 appeal, we affirm Jonathan Prive’s judgment and sentence.
However, we remand for the trial court to strike certain costs it imposed as follows. 1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
First, the costs order errantly included the $100 costs of prosecution twice: once citing section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2019), identified as “Cost of Prosecution Circuit,” and again citing section 938.27, identified as “Cost of Prosecution City Ord.” Section 938.27, however, does not permit local governments to impose higher standard costs of prosecution. Rather, it authorizes the standard costs ($50 for misdemeanors, $100 for felonies), and higher amounts "upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred." § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2019). Because no such showing was made in this case, we strike the portion of the order imposing costs pursuant to a city ordinance.
Second, we strike the costs imposed pursuant to section 318.18(11)(b), Florida Statutes (2019), as Prive was not charged with a traffic infraction. See Sorenson v. State, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D412 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb. 21, 2020).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
EVANDER, C.J., GROSSHANS and SASSO, JJ., concur. 2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Wappler v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)