Q.Q.P., 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.
Q.Q.P., a juvenile adjudicated delinquent for resisting an officer without violence, appealed the imposition of $290.92 in investigative costs. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal held that section 985.032(2) authorizes assessment of investigative costs in juvenile delinquency cases by referencing section 938.27, which expressly includes investigative costs in the definition of prosecution costs.
Section 985.032(2) authorizes the assessment of investigative costs in juvenile delinquency cases because it incorporates section 938.27 by reference, which expressly and unambiguously defines 'costs of prosecution' as 'including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies.'
[1] Juveniles adjudicated delinquent may be assessed costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies.
[2] The plain language of statutes authorizing assessment of costs of prosecution, which include investigative costs, will be applied without resort to rules of statutory con…
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 or has adjudication of delinquency withheld shall be assessed costs of prosecution as provided in s.938.27.”
Section 985.032(2) establishing that juveniles must pay prosecution costs, defined by section 938.27.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceQ.Q.P. was adjudicated delinquent for resisting an officer without violence. The trial court imposed $290.92 in investigative costs requested by the O…
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
Q.Q.P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for resisting an officer without violence, arguing that the trial court erred by imposing $290.92 in investigative costs requested by the Orlando Police Depart*1158ment.1 He reasons that the relevant statutes only authorize imposition of costs of prosecution, and not costs of investigation, on a juvenile. We disagree, and affirm.
Effective July 1, 2013, the legislature enacted section 985.032(2), Florida Statutes, which reads: “A juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent or has adjudication of delinquency withheld shall be assessed costs of prosecution as provided in s.938.27.” Section 938.27, Florida Statutes, provides in relevant part:
In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the 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.
§ 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2013).
Because the relatively new section 985.032(2) authorizes the assessment of costs of prosecution “as provided in s.938.27,” — which expressly and unambiguously defines costs of prosecution as “including investigative costs” — we find that the plain language of the statute authorizes the assessment of investigative costs in juvenile cases. As such, it would be inappropriate to resort to the rules of statutory construction which Q.Q.P. relies upon to argue for a contrary result. See, e.g., Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So.2d 587, 595 (Fla.2006) (“[W]hen the statute is clear and unambiguous, courts will not look behind the statute’s plain language for legislative intent or resort to rules of statutory construction to ascertain intent.” (quoting Daniels v. Fla. Dep’t of Health, 898 So.2d 61, 64 (Fla.2005))).
AFFIRMED.
COHEN and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Borden v. East-European Ins. Co., 921 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 2006)
- Daniels v. Fla. Dep't OF Health, 898 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 2005)