CARL HARRISON, 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.
Carl Harrison appealed his convictions for resisting an officer without violence and possession of drug paraphernalia, challenging the trial court's imposition of investigative costs. The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences but reversed the $132.50 investigative costs award because the state presented no evidence to support it, as required by statute.
The trial court erred in imposing investigative costs without any evidentiary support. Section 938.27(4) requires that the state present evidence and that costs be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, placing the burden on the state attorney to demonstrate the amount of costs incurred. Because no evidence was presented, the $132.50 in investigative costs must be stricken.
[1] A trial court may impose investigative costs on a criminal defendant pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes.
[2] The burden of demonstrating the amount of investigative costs incurred rests on the state attorney.
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“Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of costs shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred is on the state attorney.”
Establishes the statutory requirement that the state must present evidence to support investigative costs
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceCarl Harrison was convicted of resisting an officer without violence and possession of drug paraphernalia. At sentencing, the state requested investig…
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 On State cases and more on FLexlaw
Carl Harrison, Appellant, challenges his judgments and sentences for resisting an officer without violence and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant raises two issues on appeal; the only issue that merits discussion is Appellant’s claim that the trial court erred in assessing investigative costs. We affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences without further comment, but we reverse the imposition of investigative costs and remand for correction of the order of probation.
Section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2008), authorizes trial courts to impose costs of investigation on criminal defendants. Section 938.27(4) provides, “Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of costs shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred is on the state attorney....” In the instant case, even though Appellant objected to the imposition of costs at sentencing, the State did not present any evidence in support of its request for such costs. Without any evidence presented, the trial court could not have found these costs to be supported by a “preponderance of the evidence.” Because the trial court was without evidence supporting the request for any amount of investigative costs, it erred by entering an order imposing an award of those costs. The $132.50 in investigatory costs assessed against Appellant must be stricken. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order of probation and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order, striking the costs of investigation. We affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with directions.
BENTON, LEWIS, and CLARK, JJ„ concur.