YOUNG
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA

Fla. 2d DCA | 2025-12-19
No. 2024-2323
Rothstein-Youakim, J., Kelly, J., LaBrit, J., Fuson, J.
2025 FL 12264 Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District (2025)

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.

Holding

A trial court may not impose a $12 probation service fee under section 948.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes, but may impose a $50 prosecution cost fee under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, regardless of whether the State requested it.

Headnotes

[1] A probation service fee under section 948.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes, may not be imposed when the probation order separately requires monthly payments and a surcharge for…

[2] A prosecution cost fee under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, may be imposed in a misdemeanor sentencing regardless of whether the State requested it.

Previewing 2 of 2 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
Key Quotes

“We have long recognized that the erroneous imposition of costs may be addressed in an Anders brief.”

The court explaining the scope of issues properly raised in an Anders brief in a misdemeanor case.
Facts & Procedural History

Antonio Young was convicted in a misdemeanor case and sentenced with a $12 probation service fee and a $50 prosecution cost charge. The trial court gr…

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.

Topics
Misdemeanor Sentencing Anders Brief Procedure Correction Of Sentencing Error Anders Brief

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Misdemeanor Sentencing cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court
Labrit

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

ANTONIO JAMAL YOUNG,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 2D2024-2323

December 19, 2025

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robin F. Fuson, Judge.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge. Antonio Young's counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in this misdemeanor case identifying two minor sentencing errors purportedly requiring correction: the trial court's imposition of a $12 probation service fee and a $50 charge for costs of prosecution. The trial court granted Young's motion to correct these errors, but the record does not indicate that an amended judgment and sentence was entered.

KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

Footnotes
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).
2 We have long recognized that the erroneous imposition of costs may be addressed in an Anders brief. See, e.g., Crowder v. State, 313 So. 3d 704, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citing Meier v. State, 912 So. 2d 1277, 1278 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). We agree that the trial court correctly granted Young's motion as to the $12 probation service fee because section 948.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024), did not authorize the imposition of that fee and because the order of probation separately requires that Young pay $40 monthly plus a surcharge for the costs of probation. In light of the supreme court's recent decision in Parks v. State, 411 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2025), however, which disapproved our decision in D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), we conclude that the court did not err in originally imposing $50 for the costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2024), regardless of whether the State made any such request. We therefore remand for entry of an amended judgment and sentence that deletes the $12 probation service fee but affirm the original judgment and sentence in all other respects. See Johnson v. State, 354 So. 3d 598, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (remanding for entry of amended judgment and sentencing documents consistent with the prior grant of a motion to correct sentencing error); Haddock v. State, 255 So. 3d 994, 994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (same). Affirmed and remanded.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw