RAYMOND PAZO, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
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.
Raymond Pazo appealed his sentencing, challenging the trial court's imposition of investigative costs as a condition of probation. The appellate court affirmed the sentence but vacated the investigative costs provision, finding the trial court lacked statutory authority to impose such costs without proper documentation and statutory citation.
The trial court lacked authority to impose investigative costs because it failed to cite statutory authority, the state did not request the costs, and no documentation supported their imposition. The sentence was affirmed, but the investigative costs provision was vacated.
[1] A trial court lacks the authority to impose investigative costs without statutory authorization.
[2] The imposition of investigative costs requires a request and documentation from law enforcement agencies.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court failed to cite any statutory authority for the imposition of these costs. This failure constitutes error.”
Establishes that trial courts must cite specific statutory authority when imposing costs in sentencing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePazo pled guilty to burglary of a structure. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced him to probation with special conditions requiring pa…
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
ANTOON, Judge.
The defendant appeals his sentence arguing that the trial court improperly directed him to pay investigative costs. We affirm the sentence but vacate that portion of the trial court’s order requiring the defendant to pay the investigative costs because the trial court lacked the authority to impose such costs.
The defendant pled guilty to committing the offense of burglary of a structure. The trial court withheld adjudication and sentenced the defendant to serve a term of probation. As a special condition of probation, the trial court required that the defendant:
(1) “pay a total of $250 for costs of investigation”; and,
(2) “pay law enforcement investigative costs in the amount of $150.00 to be disbursed to New Smyrna Beach Police Department.”
In so ruling, the trial court failed to cite any statutory authority for the imposition of these costs. This failure constitutes error. Samuels v. State, 649 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), dismissed, 657 So. 2d 1163 (Fla. 1995) (assessed costs whose statutory authority is not specifically identified on the sentencing form should have a reference by statute number to permit appellate review).1 Additionally, the instant record does not contain a request by the state that investigative costs be imposed, nor any documentation supporting the imposition of such costs. In the absence of such documentation, the trial court lacked the authority to impose investigative costs. Burdo v. State, 667 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), quashed on other grounds, 682 So. 2d 557 (Fla.1996). We note that a contemporaneous objection was not required because the trial court lacked the authority to impose these costs. See Golden v. State, 667 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Gant v. State, 640 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Accordingly, we affirm the defendant’s sentence, vacate the imposition of investigative costs, and remand for the reimposition of such costs, if appropriate, upon compliance with the proper procedure.
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED; SENTENCE AFFIRMED in part; VACATED in part; CAUSE REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and GRIFFIN, J., concur. . We recognize that the imposition of investigation costs is authorized by several statutes including section 939.01(1), Florida Statutes (1995), which provides in pertinent part:
[I]n all criminal cases, the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies ... if requested and documented by such agencies, shall he included and entered in the judgment rendered against the convicted person. (Emphasis added).
However, this provision can not justify the imposition of costs in this case because the defendant was not a "convicted person” under section 939.01(1), since his adjudication of guilt was withheld. Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bisson v. State, 696 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…e made no request for investigative costs, nor was there any documentation offered to support the assessment. Imposition of investigative costs under these circumstances is illegal. Walker v. State, 692 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997); Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Meyers v. State, 676 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996); Golden v. State, 667 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). The state argues that section 924.051(3), Fla. Stat., which took effect July 1, 1996, bars this appeal because under the s…
-
Walker v. State, 692 So. 2d 318 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…PER CURIAM. We affirm the judgment of the trial court but strike conditions 18 and 19 of the order of probation requiring payment of investigative costs. See Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). COBB, W. SHARP and ANTOON, JJ., concur.…
-
Wines v. State, 690 So. 2d 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997)…costs and fees. Madison v. State, 664 So. 2d 1140 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Also, the court incorrectly assessed investigative costs absent a request or supporting documentation for such costs from the state. § 939.01(1), Fla.Stat. (1995); Pazo v. State, 684 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). The trial court further erred by failing to orally announce all discretionary costs and fees. Reyes v. State, 655 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Finally, the trial court improperly imposed the public defender’s lien because Wine…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Clinger v. State, 533 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)
- Gant v. State, 640 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Jacques F. Golden v. State, 667 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Burdo v. State, 667 So. 2d 874 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996)
- Samuels v. State, 649 So. 2d 272 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Burdo v. State, 682 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 1996)