ABRAHAM JOSEPH LOVETT
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.
Abraham Joseph Lovett challenges the investigative and court costs imposed as part of his sentence for sexual activity with a child in a position of familial or custodial authority. The Fifth District reversed and remanded, holding that investigative costs must be stricken and that the trial court's amended court cost order incorrectly retained the original amount despite granting a partial reduction.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that investigative costs must be stricken and the trial court must enter a second amended order assessing only $345 in court costs with applicable statutory citations, rather than the original $418.
“Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the investigative costs should be stricken.”
Establishes the basis for reversal regarding investigative costs, with State concurrence eliminating factual dispute on this issue.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLovett was convicted at trial for sexual activity with a child while in a position of familial or custodial authority. The trial court imposed investi…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant challenges the costs of investigation and certain court costs that were imposed on him by the trial court as part of his sentence after being convicted at trial for sexual activity with a child while in a position of familial or custodial authority. 1 We reverse.
Appellant argues, and the State concedes, that the investigative costs should be stricken. We accept the State’s concession, and remand for the trial court to strike the investigative costs from its court cost order and to vacate its separate order entered for reimbursement of investigative costs.
Appellant’s second argument is that although the trial court granted his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to strike $73 from the $418 in court costs initially imposed, the amended court cost order subsequently entered still assessed the original $418 in court costs. Appellant is correct. On remand, the trial court shall enter a second amended court cost order showing the sum of $345 assessed as court costs, together with the applicable statutory citations supporting this amount.
REVERSED and REMANDED with directions.
EVANDER, C.J., COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 1 Appellant has not contested his conviction or the incarcerative aspects of his sentence. 2