BRIAN INGALLS
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.
An appellant challenged various costs imposed following a plea of no contest to multiple offenses. The court affirmed the costs of prosecution imposed pursuant to the plea agreement, reversed the costs of investigation and domestic violence surcharge due to insufficient evidentiary support, and remanded the county drug abuse program cost for reconsideration of the appellant's ability to pay.
The court affirmed the imposition of $200 in costs of prosecution as it was included in the plea agreement to which the appellant assented. The court reversed the $50 costs of investigation and remanded for an evidentiary hearing due to absence of evidentiary support for the amount imposed. The court reversed the county drug abuse program cost and remanded for the trial court to consider the appellant's ability to pay under section 938.21. The court reversed and struck the domestic violence surcharge as the appellant was not sentenced for an offense enumerated in section 938.08.
[1] Statutory costs agreed to in a plea agreement may be imposed without additional factual findings or evidentiary support under Florida Statutes § 938.27.
[2] A trial court must hold an evidentiary hearing and make factual findings regarding a defendant's ability to pay before imposing costs not specified in a plea agreement, s…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Appellant assented to pay the delineated monies, and he is bound to do so”
The court citing Adams v. State regarding costs agreed to in a plea agreement
Following the appellant's plea of no contest to various offenses, the trial court imposed multiple costs including $200 for costs of prosecution, $50 …
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. Following the appellant’s plea of no contest to various offenses, the trial court imposed numerous costs, which the appellant challenges. We agree with the appellant in part, and we remand for further proceedings as to the costs of investigation and the county drug abuse program cost. We reverse the imposition of the domestic violence surcharge, and we affirm the imposition of costs of prosecution. As a preliminary matter, we reject the state’s argument that the appellant did not preserve error for review. The appellant preserved his arguments by raising them in a motion to correct sentence. See Allen v. State, 172 So. 3d 523, 524-25 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015).
With respect to the costs of prosecution, the appellant acknowledges that a trial court may impose a cost of prosecution greater than $100, but he argues that the trial court did not comply with section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2017), which requires factual findings based on evidence supporting the imposition of such costs. See Desrosiers v. State, 286 So. 3d 297, 300 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019); § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2017). We find no merit to this argument in light of the plea agreement, which called for the imposition of $200 for costs of prosecution. See Adams v. State, 118 So. 3d 930, 931-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (rejecting appellant’s challenge to imposition of court costs and public defender lien where fees were imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, as “Appellant assented to pay the delineated monies, and he is bound to do so”). The appellant also challenges the imposition of costs of investigation of $50. The plea agreement called for the imposition of costs of investigation but did not provide for an amount. We reverse based on the absence of evidence supporting the costs imposed. On remand, the trial court shall hold an evidentiary hearing on the costs of investigation. See Negron v. State, 266 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019); Phillips v. State, 942 So. 2d 1042, 1044 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). The trial court also imposed costs for the county drug abuse program. The trial court did not make the required finding that the appellant had the ability to pay the cost, and the plea agreement did not provide for this particular cost.1 The state concedes error. We reverse and remand for the trial court to consider the factors recited in section 938.21, Florida Statutes (2017). See Desrosiers, 286 So. 3d at 300. The state also concedes that the trial court erred in imposing the domestic violence surcharge, as the appellant was not sentenced for an offense recited in section 938.08, Florida Statutes (2017). This cost must be stricken.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. CIKLIN, FORST and KUNTZ, JJ., concur. * * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
D.L. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…ore waived his right to appeal the enhanced $200 prosecution cost imposed in each case. However, the juvenile correctly argues the plea agreement did not indicate the prosecution costs would exceed the statutory minimum. Cf. Ingalls v. State, 304 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (affirming the $200 prosecution costs where the plea agreement called for imposing $200 prosecution costs). Further, after the disposition hearing, the juvenile filed a Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to…
-
Bartolone v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…)); Felton v. State, 939 So. 2d 1159, 1159 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (reversing the trial court’s imposition of “prosecution and investigative costs” based on errors first raised in defendant’s rule 3.800(b)(2) motion). Recently, in Ingalls v. State, 304 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020), we held that, with respect to “the trial court impos[ing] numerous costs,” the defendant “preserved his arguments by raising them in a motion to correct sentence.” Id. at 21 (citing Allen v. State, 172 So. 3d 523, 524–25 (Fl…
-
D.L. v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…herefore waived his right to appeal the enhanced $200 prosecution cost imposed in each case. However, the juvenile correctly argues the plea agreement did not indicate the prosecution costs would exceed the statutory minimum. Cf. Ingalls v. State, 304 So. 3d 21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020) (affirming the $200 prosecution costs where the plea agreement called for imposing $200 prosecution costs). Further, after the disposition hearing, the juvenile filed a Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to co…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Jomar Morales Negron v. State, 266 So. 3d 1266 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)
- Allen v. State, 172 So. 3d 523 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)