CHAZ CUMMINGS
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 assess investigative costs against a defendant under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes, absent a request from the State.
[1] A trial court lacks authority to assess investigative costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes, absent a request from the State.
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 State must request investigative costs to make a defendant liable for those costs”
Citation to Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020)
Chaz Cummings was convicted and sentenced in Volusia County. The trial court assessed investigative costs against Cummings without a request from the …
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
PER CURIAM.
In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Chaz Cummings’ judgment and sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla.
2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant liable for those costs . . . .” (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In all other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 (Fla.
2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation requirement of [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.
JAY, HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)
- Smith v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
- Javaughn Skinkle v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)