D.A., A CHILD, 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.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order imposing costs of prosecution on a juvenile adjudicated delinquent, holding that section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes applies only to convicted persons in criminal cases, not to juveniles in delinquency proceedings.
The trial court erred in imposing costs of prosecution on D.A. because section 938.27(1) applies only to "convicted persons" in "criminal cases," and a juvenile adjudicated delinquent is not a convicted person or criminal.
[1] A juvenile adjudicated delinquent has not been "convicted" and is not a "criminal" for purposes of statutes applicable to convicted persons in criminal cases.
[2] Costs of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007), are applicable only to "convicted persons" in "criminal cases."
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“A juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent has not been "convicted," and is not a "criminal."”
Establishes the fundamental distinction between adjudication of delinquency and conviction, which is central to the court's holding that section 938.27(1) does not apply to juveniles.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceD.A., a child, was adjudicated delinquent in juvenile court. The trial court imposed costs of prosecution against D.A. pursuant to section 938.27(1), …
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 Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
We hold that it was error for the trial court to impose costs of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007) on D.A., a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent.
This is an issue of statutory interpretation, which is subject to a de novo standard of review. Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 807 (Fla.2008). Section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007) provides for the imposition of costs of prosecution, as follows:
In all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of 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.
A juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent has not been “convicted,” and is not a “criminal.” See § 985.35(6), Fla. Stat. (2007) 1 ; see also A.M.P. v. State, 927 *424So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating that “an adjudication of delinquency does not qualify as a ‘conviction’ for purposes of section 775.083”) (Florida Statutes); State v. N.P., 913 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (stating that juveniles are not deemed to be “convicted” by adjudications of delinquency). Thus, section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2007), which expressly applies to all “convicted persons” in “criminal cases”, does not apply to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent. Cf. V.K.E. v. State, 934 So.2d 1276 (Fla.2006) (holding that a trial judge does not have the power to impose surcharges pursuant to sections 938.08 and 938.085, Florida Statutes on a juvenile in a juvenile delinquency proceeding and concluding that imposing such surcharges would conflict with the legislative intent in creating a separate juvenile justice system).
Accordingly, we reverse the order imposing costs of prosecution on D.A.
Reversed.
POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilgy Therlonge v. State, 184 So. 3d 1120 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)…original investigation never ceased and it was ongoing.” Subsequently, Appellant was convicted, declared a sexual offender, and sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment. Analysis We review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. D.A. v. State, 11 So. 3d 423, 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). When confronted with a question of statutory interpretation, the reviewing court must first look to the statute’s actual language. Bryan v. State, 865 So. 2d 677, 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004). “In analyzing statutory language,…
-
Bevans v. State, 291 So. 3d 591 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020)…e, 276 So. 3d 812, 813 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019). Finally, appellant challenges the imposition of $200 in prosecution costs. Imposing costs of prosecution involves a question of statutory interpretation, which is reviewed de novo. D.A. v. State, 11 So. 3d 423, 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). Section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, provides: Costs for the state attorney must be set in all cases at . . . no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged, including a proceeding in which the underlyi…
-
S.D.J. v. State, 21 So. 3d 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)…PER CURIAM. In this appeal from a juvenile disposition, the State concedes that the trial court erred by assessing costs of prosecution. See D.A. v. State, 11 So. 3d 423 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (holding that section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes, does not authorize courts to impose costs of prosecution on a juvenile adjudicated delinquent). Accordingly, we remand with directions that these costs be stricken. In all other…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Kasischke v. State, 991 So. 2d 803 (Fla. 2008)
- V.K.E. v. State, 934 So. 2d 1276 (Fla. 2006)
- A.M.P. v. State, 927 So. 2d 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Pasco Cnty. Bocc & Commercial Risk Mgmt. v. Peterson, 913 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)
- State v. N.P., 913 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)