PAUL ALLEN DAVIS
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 must make an explicit finding that a defendant has the ability to pay an additional assessment under section 938.21 before imposing drug case fines under section 938.23.
[1] A trial court must make an explicit finding under section 938.21 that a defendant has the ability to pay an additional assessment and will not be prevented from rehabilit…
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 court is authorized to order a defendant to pay an additional assessment if it finds that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine and the additional assessment and will not be prevented thereby from being rehabilitated or from making restitution.”
Statutory requirement from section 938.21, Florida Statutes (2021), cited by the court as the prerequisite for imposing drug case fines.
Paul Allen Davis was convicted of trafficking in 14 grams or more of methamphetamine. The trial court imposed a mandatory $50,000 trafficking fine and…
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.
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-2596 Lower Tribunal No. 22CF001566AOS _____________________________
PAUL ALLEN DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. _____________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County. Keith A. Carsten, Judge.
September 5, 2025
WHITE, J.
Paul Allen Davis appeals the Judgment and Sentence entered after he was found guilty of trafficking in 14 grams or more of methamphetamine. Davis argues that the Judgment and Sentence improperly imposes “Drug Case Fines” of $350
2
pursuant to section 938.23, Florida Statutes (2021).1 We agree.2 “In addition to any fine imposed . . . under chapter 893 . . . the court shall be authorized, pursuant to the requirements of s. 938.21, to impose an additional assessment in an amount up to the amount of the fine authorized for the offense.” § 938.23(1), Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added). “The court is authorized to order a defendant to pay an additional assessment if it finds that the defendant has the ability to pay the fine and the additional assessment and will not be prevented thereby from being rehabilitated or from making restitution.” § 938.21, Fla. Stat. (2021) (emphasis added). Here, the trial court did not make the finding required by section 938.21 that was necessary to impose an additional assessment pursuant to section 938.23. Therefore, the trial court erred by ordering Davis to pay “Drug Case Fines” of $350.
3
For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the improperly imposed “Drug Case Fines” of $350. On remand, the trial court shall enter a corrected Judgment and Sentence removing the “Drug Case Fines” of $350. Davis’s presence is not required for that ministerial correction. See Andrillon, 398 So. 3d at 493. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment and sentence without further discussion. AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions. MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Lisa Martin, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Bureau Chief, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.