C.S., 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.
C.S. appealed his delinquency adjudication for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and challenged various costs and surcharges imposed by the trial court. The appellate court affirmed the adjudication and one cost but reversed and remanded regarding other costs that lacked statutory authority in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
The court affirmed the adjudication of delinquency and the $50 mandatory cost imposed pursuant to section 938.03. The court reversed the imposition of the $3 cost under section 938.01 and the $112 cost under section 938.05 because these statutes do not expressly apply to juvenile delinquency proceedings.
[1] Costs imposed pursuant to Florida Statutes section 938.05 are not applicable in juvenile delinquency proceedings.
[2] A cost or surcharge applicable to adult sanctions may not be imposed in a juvenile delinquency proceeding unless the relevant statute expressly states otherwise.
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“an adult sanction, cost, or surcharge is not applicable in a juvenile delinquency proceeding unless the relevant statute expressly states otherwise”
Establishes the governing legal standard for determining whether adult-oriented statutory cost provisions apply in juvenile cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceC.S. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. After trial, the trial judge imposed several costs without providing stat…
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 Mandatory Court Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
CASANUEVA, Judge.
C.S. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for commission of an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, as well as the order imposing costs and surcharges entered at the hearing on his motion to correct disposition errors. We affirm the adjudication of delinquency and imposition of one of the costs. We reverse on the other surcharges and remand.
After trial, the trial judge imposed several costs without providing statutory authority for those costs. C.S. filed a motion to correct disposition errors pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135. At the hearing on the motion, the trial judge made the following pronouncement:
[T]he Court will re-impose $165 and specify that those costs came from the mandatory court costs in 938.01, which is the clearing trust fund, $3, crimes compensation trust fund of 938.03 in the amount of $50, the additional court costs for felonies, 938.05, in the amount of $112, for a total of $165.
On appeal, C.S. argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005). The State correctly concedes error on the cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276, 1282 (Fla.2006) (holding that section 938.05 does not apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings). In V.K.E., the supreme court reasoned that an adult sanction, cost, or surcharge is not applicable in a juvenile delinquency proceeding unless the relevant statute expressly states otherwise. Id. Like section 938.05, section 938.01 makes no mention of juvenile delinquency proceedings. Therefore, both the $3 surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.01 and the $112 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05 should be stricken.
C.S. also argues that the trial judge originally imposed the $50 surcharge pursuant to section 938.03 as a term of his probation; therefore, he contends it was error for the judge to reimpose the cost at the hearing on the motion to correct disposition errors when he had already completed his probationary term. We find no merit to this argument. Section 938.03 makes this $50 cost mandatory for any adjudication of delinquency, providing that “[tjhese costs shall not be waived by the court.” § 938.03(2). Nothing in the record demonstrates the court imposed this cost as a term of probation.
Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency as well as the $50 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.03. We reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05. We note that C.S. is entitled to a refund of any amount he may have already paid towards these costs.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
VILLANTI and LaROSE, JJ„ Concur.