JORGE LUIS MUNOZ, 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.
Jorge Luis Munoz appeals his convictions for conspiracy to traffic in heroin and sale and delivery of heroin. The appellate court affirms the convictions but reverses the imposition of investigative costs due to insufficient documentation, remanding for the state to provide proper substantiation.
The convictions are affirmed, but the imposition of the $818.30 in investigative costs is reversed and the case is remanded to allow the state an opportunity to provide proper documentation of the costs. The costs may be reimposed if the state provides the required documentation at a noticed hearing.
[1] A court must have documentation to impose investigative costs on a convicted person.
[2] The state bears the burden of substantiating the amount of investigative costs sought to be imposed.
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“In all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies.”
Establishes the statutory framework for imposing investigative costs in criminal cases, emphasizing the requirement that costs be documented.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMunoz was convicted of conspiracy to traffic in more than 28 grams of heroin and sale and delivery of heroin. He was sentenced to 30 years with a 25-y…
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 Burden Of Proof For Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
THOMPSON, J.
Jorge Luis Munoz appeals his convictions for conspiracy to traffic in more than 28 grams of heroin and for the sale and delivery of heroin. Munoz was sentenced to 30 years in prison with a 25-year minimum mandatory term on the conspiracy charge and to a concurrent 15-year sentence for the sale and delivery of heroine. The trial court also imposed a mandatory $50,000 fine. He also appeals the assessment of investigative costs of $818.30. We affirm the convictions finding no error, but we strike the imposition of costs and remand to give the state an opportunity to produce the appropriate documentation.
Section 938.27, Florida Statutes, (2001) requires the court to impose costs if requested and documented by the investigating agency:
(1) In all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. These costs shall be included and entered in the judgment rendered against the convicted person.
At sentencing, the state referred the trial court to some paperwork regarding costs, but the paperwork is not in the record. The court imposed the $818.30, costs stating that the amount was the balance after the assessment against Munoz’s co-defendant. Section 938.27(6), Florida Statutes, places the burden on the state to substantiate the amount of costs. Although there was no objection at trial to this lack of substantiation, the error is preserved because Munoz unsuccessfully sought correction by filing a motion pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2).
We reverse this portion of the sentencing order with the proviso that the assessment may be reimposed if the state documents the investigative costs. See Tucker v. State, 832 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (stating that “[w]hen costs of prosecution are imposed, the state must provide documentation for the costs, and the defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard”). Such costs may be reimposed if the state can produce the required documentation at a noticed hearing. Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Terry v. State, 791 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
We affirm the convictions, strike the imposition of costs, and remand to provide the state an opportunity to comply with the procedural requirements of section 938.27. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with directions.
PLEUS and MONACO, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Simmons v. State, 24 So. 3d 636 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009)…the $50 amount over the mandatory $100 without requiring the State to provide documentation of the additional amount. Such additional amount may be reimposed if the State complies with the procedural requirements of the statute. See Munoz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1070, 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (“Such costs may be reimposed if the state can produce the required documentation at a noticed hearing.”). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. ALTENBERND and MORRIS, JJ., Concur.…
-
Gilchrist v. State, 938 So. 2d 654 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006)…e the appropriate documentation for the costs. See Miller v. State, 912 So. 2d 1282, 1282 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (stating that “when imposing discretionary costs, the court must give the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard”); Munoz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (concluding that “such costs may be reimposed if the state can produce the required documentation at a noticed hearing”). Thus, upon retrial, if Gilchrist is convicted, the trial court after notice and hearing must determine if t…
-
Offeyette Speed v. State, 262 So. 3d 267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)…cess of $100.00 because there was no competent, substantial evidence to support those amounts. See § 938.27(7)–(8), Fla. Stat. (2016). We therefore remand to give the State an opportunity to produce the appropriate documentation. Munoz v. State, 884 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); see also Phillips v. State, 942 So. 2d 1042 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). We otherwise affirm. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED. EVANDER, C.J., WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hill v. State, 845 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Tucker v. State, 832 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Gonzalez v. State, 791 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- Terry v. State, 791 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)