CYNEDICE RICE
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 not impose prosecution costs exceeding $100 without proof that the State incurred costs greater than that amount.
[1] A trial court may not impose state attorney costs of prosecution exceeding the statutory minimum of $100 without evidence that the State incurred actual costs greater tha…
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“Because the State failed to present any proof showing that it incurred costs greater than $100, we agree with Rice and accept the State's concession.”
Court's explanation for reversing the $250 cost imposition
Cynedice Rice was found guilty of one felony and one misdemeanor. The trial court imposed a Monetary Obligations Order that included $250 in Additiona…
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 Appeal From Judgment And Sentence cases and more on FLexlaw
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
Case No. 6D2024-2322 Lower Tribunal No. 2024-CF-000336
CYNEDICE RICE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County. Jalal A. Harb, Judge.
July 10, 2026
WHITE, J.
Cynedice Rice appeals the judgment and sentence entered after she was found guilty of one felony and one misdemeanor. Rice argues, and the State concedes, that the Monetary Obligations Order improperly imposes "Additional SAO Costs of Prosecution Fees" of $250. Because the State failed to present any proof showing that it incurred costs greater than $100, we agree with Rice and accept the State's concession. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2023); Irizarry v. State, 425 So. 3d 1190,
1190 (Fla. 6th DCA 2026); Golphin v. State, 413 So. 3d 828, 828 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).
Therefore, we reverse the improper cost imposition of $250 and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected Monetary Obligations Order imposing $100 for state attorney costs of prosecution. Rice's presence is not required for that ministerial correction. See Irizarry, 425 So. 3d at 1190; Golphin, 413 So. 3d at 829. Otherwise, we affirm the judgment and sentence without further discussion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED with instructions.
NARDELLA and PRATT, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and A. Victoria Wiggins, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Nicole Rochelle Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.