H.S., A JUVENILE, APPELLANT,

v.

THE STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE

SCALES, J.

H.S., a juvenile, appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to correct a disposition error. Because section 939.185(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2015) does not authorize a Florida county to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional $65 court cost where a juvenile court sustains the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudication of delinquency is withheld, wé reverse and remand with directions that the $65 in additional court cost be stricken from H.S.’s disposition.

On September 25, 2015, the State filed a petition for delinquency against H.S., charging H.S. with one count of trespass on school property with a weapon, and one count of possession of a weapon on school property. Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that H.S. committed the second offense but withheld adjudication of delinquency. The disposition order imposed $65 as an additional *424court cost in accordance with Miami-Dade-County Ordinance 04-116, adopted pursuant to section 939.185(l)(a).1

H.S. thereafter moved to correct the disposition under rule 8.135(b)(2), arguing that the statute authorizing Florida counties to impose an additional court cost of up to $65 did not authorize the imposition of that additional cost when, as here, the trial court withholds adjudication of, delinquency despite sustaining the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition. H.S.’s motion was deemed denied when the trial' court failed to file an order ruling on the motion within thirty days. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(B).

We agree with H.S. While section 939.185(l)(a) does authorize Florida counties to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional court cost of up to $65, that authorizing statute clearly and unambiguously schedules - those adjudications and dispositions to which any such additional court cost applies. Specifically, a county may' impose the additional surcharge “when a person pleads guilty'or nolo coh-tendere to, dr is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense ...§ 939.185(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2016). The statute simply does not authorize the surcharge when, as here, a juvenile is found to be delinquent, but adjudication is withheld.

This Court has previously found the statute does mot apply to juvenile withholds of adjudication. S.F. v. State, 56 So.3d 116, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also R.F. v. State, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that while the Florida Legislature amended section 939.185 in 2007 to apply it specifically to an adjudiea-tión of delinquency; “the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the [additional] cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency”). Moreover, Florida courts have routinely held that, absent express authorization,.a local ordinance may not impose a penalty that exceeds the statutory penalty. See, e.g., F.F. v. State, 218 So.3d 455, 457 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“ ‘[A]n ordinance penalty may not exceed the penalty imposed by the state.’ ” ... Thus, if the Broward County ordinance authorizes the assessment of the teen court cost upon a juvenile whose adjudication of delinquency is withheld, sutíh a penalty would exceed the penalty imposed by section 938.19(2), which requires an adjudication of delinquency.” (quoting Thomas v. State, 614 So.2d 468, 470 (Fla. 1993))); Mitchell v. State, 789 So.2d 1043, 1044 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (“Although Bay County Ordinance 94-06 provides for a service charge-in addition to the amount authorized by the Florida Legislature, the trial court could not require- the -appellant to pay more than what the legislature has authorized.”).

Accordingly, because we find the juvenile court’s imposition of a $65 additional court:cost was not authorized under section 939.185(l)(a), we reverse and remand with directions that the costs be stricken.2

Reversed and remanded.