ROBERTS
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
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.
A trial court may impose a $100 cost of prosecution sua sponte as a mandated minimum cost under Florida law, and prosecutorial misconduct claims in opening and closing arguments do not warrant reversal absent further comment.
[1] A $100 cost of prosecution is a mandated minimum cost under Florida law that may be imposed sua sponte by a trial court and is not an investigative cost requiring agency…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“the [$100] cost for the state attorney is a minimum cost that is mandated by subsection (8) and not an 'investigative' cost incurred by an agency, as described in § 938.27(1), which can only be imposed 'if requested' by the agency.”
Court's explanation of the distinction between mandated costs and investigative costs under Florida law
James Elton Roberts was convicted by jury of three counts of battery of a facility employee by throwing, tossing, or expelling certain fluids or mater…
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.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2023-0464 _____________________________
JAMES ELTON ROBERTS,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Bradford County. James M. Colaw, Judge.
June 12, 2024
PER CURIAM.
James Elton Roberts appeals his judgment and sentences, entered by the trial court after a jury found him guilty of three counts of battery of a facility employee by throwing, tossing, or expelling certain fluids or materials. Roberts raises two issues on appeal: (i) whether the State engaged in prosecutorial misconduct in its opening and closing arguments, and (ii) whether the trial court erred by imposing a $100 cost of prosecution.
We affirm as to the first issue without further comment. As for the second issue, Roberts insists that the trial court erred by imposing a $100 cost of prosecution sua sponte. As we have explained in Parks v. State, “the [$100] cost for the state attorney is a minimum cost that is mandated by subsection (8) and not an
AFFIRMED.
LEWIS, M.K. THOMAS, and NORDBY, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Jessica J. Yeary, Public Defender, Danielle Jorden, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Christina Piotrowski, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.