Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...nal traffic offense under the laws of this state, or the violation of any municipal or county ordinance .... (emphasis added) Part I also contains two other sections requiring the imposition of court costs. For the violation of any criminal offense, section 938.05 imposes from $50.00 to $200.00, for the benefit of the Fine and Forfeiture Fund, and section 938.06 imposes, as a court cost, a $20.00 surcharge on any fine, for the benefit of the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund....

...s to provide legal aid programs, to fund public law libraries, and to support teen court programs, juvenile assessment centers, and other juvenile alternative programs. The rationale used in S.S.M., to justify imposition of the surcharge pursuant to section 938.05, was that the statute assesses this surcharge for a violation of section 784.03 (battery statute), and section 985.03(58) defines "violation of law" or a "delinquent act" as a "violation of any law of this state." [n.1] [n.1] Section 9...

...tem, it should not be applicable. Sections 938.08 and 938.085 make no reference to delinquency proceedings. Thus I would have concluded that the trial court erred in this juvenile case, in imposing the surcharges against V.K.E., pursuant to sections 938.05 and 938.085....

...that the Legislature has demonstrated its awareness of its broad authority to provide for the taxation of costs, fees, and surcharges in both adult and juvenile delinquency proceedings, but has not provided for the assessment of costs under sections 938.05 and 938.085 in juvenile delinquency proceedings....

...excessive charge, which may be punitive in nature. Based on the ordinary meanings of the terms "fee" and "surcharge," I conclude that section 985.221's prohibition against charging "court fees" does not prohibit the surcharges set forth in sections 938.05 and 938.085....

...I In 2010, a Florida jury convicted Chamblee of 1 count of racketeering and 25 counts of grand theft. The state trial court entered a judgment sentencing Chamblee to 25 years in prison and ordering him to pay three different sums that are relevant to this appeal: (1) a $225 court cost under Fla. Stat. § 938.05 ; (2) a $20 court cost under Fla....

...nal traffic offense under the laws of this state, or the violation of any municipal or county ordinance .... (emphasis added) Part I also contains two other sections requiring the imposition of court costs. For the violation of any criminal offense, section 938.05 imposes from $50.00 to $200.00, for the benefit of the Fine and Forfeiture Fund, and section 938.06 imposes, as a court cost, a $20.00 surcharge on any fine, for the benefit of the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund....

...s to provide legal aid programs, to fund public law libraries, and to support teen court programs, juvenile assessment centers, and other juvenile alternative programs. The rationale used in S.S.M., to justify imposition of the surcharge pursuant to section 938.05, was that the statute assesses this surcharge for a violation of section 784.03 (battery statute), and section 985.03(58) defines "violation of law" or a "delinquent act" as a "violation of any law of this state." [1] This definition comes from Chapter 985, the Chapter which deals with juvenile delinquency....

...tem, it should not be applicable. Sections 938.08 and 938.085 make no reference to delinquency proceedings. Thus I would have concluded that the trial court erred in this juvenile case, in imposing the surcharges against V.K.E., pursuant to sections 938.05 and 938.085....

...Each violation or offense is, thus, the basis for separate assessment of costs. If the Legislature intended to impose costs per case, it could have expressly done so as it has in other cost statutes. See, e.g., § 938.03(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“shall pay as an additional cost in the case”); § 938.05(1), Fla....

...challenged the legality of various costs. We agree that all but one of the challenged costs require reversal and correction of the judgment. In both Case No. 16-3306CF10A and Case No. 16-5007CF10A, the $60 charges for the misdemeanor counts under section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2016), must be stricken because section 938.05 allows imposition of court costs per case, not per count....

...State, 215 So. 3d 55, 58 (Fla. 2017) (“If the Legislature intended to impose costs per case [under sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006)], it could have expressly done so as it has in other cost statutes. See, e.g., . . . § 938.05(1), Fla....

...a church. After a thorough review of the record, we have found no reversible error and affirm Mr. Swift’s judgments and sentences. However, we agree with Mr. Swift’s contention that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs under sections 938.05(1) and 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2008), as he asserted in a timely motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). Mr. Swift correctly contends that the assessment of $225 to the Criminal Justice Trust Fund must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(l)(a) in effect at the time of his offenses. See § 938.05(l)(a), Fla....

...gree felony under the 10-20-Life statute when the court imposes a mandatory minimum term of less than 30 years. With respect to the fifth issue, we remand for correction of the following minor sentencing errors: imposition of a $230 cost pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes, when the statutory maximum is $225; imposition of a $415 cost pursuant *851 to section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes, when the statutory maximum is $50; and imposition of the $100 cost of prosecution without citing the statutory basis for the cost....

...ders counsel. I. Sentencing Errors Appellant filed a timely motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that the trial court erred by incorrectly indicating that the fine imposed pursuant to section 938.05, Florida Statutes, is $230.00; incorrectly indicating that the fine imposed pursuant to section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes, is $415.00; imposing a $100.00 cost of prosecution, without citing statutory authority; and imposing a $100.0...

...o dispute the amount of the lien. Because the trial court did not file an order ruling on the motion within sixty days, the motion is deemed to have been denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Each of these challenges is discussed in turn. *78 Section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), provides that anyone found guilty of any felony in Florida shall pay a $225.00 fine....

...We conclude that five of the fees must be stricken, but we affirm the court’s imposition of the remaining two. In the written judgment, the court imposed $225 for felony court costs and an additional $100 for misdemeanor court costs pursuant to section 938.05(1), Florida Statutes....

...The court further imposed a "SOC IF 100" charge, without any explanation or citation of authority. On remand, the specific authority should be cited for this assessment. See Snowden v. State, supra . The court imposed a $225 charge for a Local Government Criminal Justice Trust Fund, under section 938.05, Florida Statutes. The appellant's offense was committed in May 2008, when the statute authorized only a $200 assessment. See § 938.05, Fla....

Per Curiam. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by imposing: (1) a sentence for misdemeanor possession of cannabis in excess of the statutory maximum; (2) court costs for that offense under section 938.05(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), after imposing costs under the same statutory provision for a companion felony charge in the case; and (3) costs under section 318.18, Florida Statutes (2017), when no traffic offense was charged in the case....

...nal traffic offense under the laws of this state, or the violation of any municipal or county ordinance .... (emphasis added) Part I also contains two other sections requiring the imposition of court costs. For the violation of any criminal offense, section 938.05 imposes from $50.00 to $200.00, for the benefit of the Fine and Forfeiture Fund, and section 938.06 imposes, as a court cost, a $20.00 surcharge on any fine, for the benefit of the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund....

...s to provide legal aid programs, to fund public law libraries, and to support teen court programs, juvenile assessment centers, and other juvenile alternative programs. The rationale used in S.S.M., to justify imposition of the surcharge pursuant to section 938.05, was that the statute assesses this surcharge for a violation of section 784.03 (battery statute), and section 985.03(58) defines “violation of law” or a “delinquent act” as a “violation of any law of this state.” [n.l] [n....

...tem, it should not be applicable. Sections 938.08 and 938.085 make no reference to delinquency proceedings. Thus I would have concluded that the trial court erred in this juvenile case, in imposing the surcharges against V.K.E., pursuant to sections 938.05 and 938.085....

...that the Legislature has demonstrated its awareness of its broad authority to provide for the taxation of costs, fees, and surcharges in both adult and juvenile delinquency proceedings, but has not provided for the assessment of costs under sections 938.05 and 938.085 in juvenile delinquency proceedings....

...However, both challenged costs may be reimposed on remand if the court finds that Broadnax has the ability to pay. See Clark, 963 So.2d at 913. Broadnax also argues that a $50 cost and a $200 cost should be stricken because the offense occurred before the effective dates of the authorizing statutes, sections 939.185 and 938.05....

...As to the $50 cost, the supreme court has held that retroactive application of section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), does not violate ex post facto prohibitions. Griffin v. State, 980 So.2d 1035 (Fla.2008). As to the $200 cost, this cost is authorized under section 938.05, which was enacted under chapter 97-271, Laws of Florida, before Broadnax's offense....

...We affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences. However, we agree with Appellant’s contention, in his timely motion to correct sentence filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), that the trial court erred in imposing certain costs under section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009). Section 938.05(l)(a) provides that a trial court must impose court costs of $225 if a person is found guilty of a felony or felonies under Florida law. While the trial court sentenced Appellant for two felonies, the trial court mistakenly imposed court costs pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a) in two sections of the judgment. In one section of the judgment, the trial imposed costs of $250.00; in the other section, it imposed costs of $25. The trial court therefore imposed $50 more in costs than statutorily allowed as provided by section 938.05(l)(a). Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s judgments and sentences, but we remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order reflecting $225 in costs pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a)....

...er. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court orally imposed a $100 cost of prosecution and "all costs as required by statute." The written order imposed $495 in costs, which included a $150 prosecution cost and a $225 cost for felonies pursuant to section 938.05(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...Torres filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), contending that the $150 prosecution cost must either be stricken or corrected to conform to the trial court's oral pronouncement. Torres also argued that the $225 cost must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(1)(a) that was in effect at the time of his offenses, and that the probation order must be corrected to reflect the proper cost amount....

...corrected to conform to the oral pronouncement). Torres properly preserved this issue by filing a rule 3.800(b) motion to correct sentencing error. Torres also argues, and we agree, that the $225 cost must be reduced to $200 based on the version of section 938.05(1)(a) that was in effect on the date of his offenses....

...2d DCA 2002) ("Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to change Jones's sentence during the pendency of the appeal, the probation order was void."). *916 Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to enter a corrected order reflecting $100 in prosecution costs and $200 in costs pursuant to section 938.05(1)(a)....

...of racketeering and 25 counts of grand theft. The state trial court entered a judgment sentencing Chamblee to 25 years in prison and ordering him to pay three different sums that are relevant to this appeal: (1) a $225 court cost under Fla. Stat. § 938.05; (2) a $20 court cost under Fla....

...1st DCA 2011). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fine, surcharge, and cost after providing proper notice and an opportunity to be heard. Giles, 103 So. 3d at 1058; Nix, 84 So. 3d at 426. Next, the additional cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2007), must be reduced from $225 to $200....

Question One, St. Johns County is authorized by section 938.05(3), Florida Statutes, to use Local Government

example, Woods and the State agree that under section 938.05(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2021), a trial court

...to culpability. Florida imposes heftier costs on felony offenders than those convicted of misdemeanors or criminal traffic offenses, and it does not impose any fees and costs if a criminal case ends in an acquittal or a nolle prosequi. See id. §§ 938.05(1), 939.06(1)....

...Florida imposes a flat $225 assessment in every felony case, $200 of which is used to fund the clerk’s office and $25 of which is remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue for deposit in the state’s general revenue fund. See id.; Fla. Stat. § 938.05(1)(a)....

...§§ 28.37(3), 213.131, 215.20, 142.01, 960.21. For example, Fla. Stat. § 938.01(1) requires felons to pay $3 as a court cost, and that sum is remitted to the Department of Revenue for, among other things, a domestic violence program and a law-enforcement training fund. Similarly, Fla. Stat. § 938.05 imposes a flat $225 fee in every felony case, $200 of which is used to fund the clerk’s office and $25 of which is remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue for deposit in the state’s general revenue fund....

...n-Costs- Florida's-Criminal-Justice-Fees.pdf. 193  Case: 20-12003 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 194 of 200 convicted of a felony. See Jordan Dissent at 114 (citing Fla. Stat. § 938.05(1)(a)). Some financial obligations are actually imposed based on indigency: For example, Florida charges $50 to apply for a public defender, a constitutionally-required service for which only indigent defendants qualify.6 See Gideon v....

...to culpability. Florida imposes heftier costs on felony offenders than those convicted of misdemeanors or criminal traffic offenses, and it does not impose any fees and costs if a criminal case ends in an acquittal or a nolle prosequi. See id. §§ 938.05(1), 939.06(1)....

...Florida imposes a flat $225 assessment in every felony case, $200 of which is used to fund the clerk’s office and $25 of which is remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue for deposit in the state’s general revenue fund. See id.; Fla. Stat. § 938.05(1)(a)....

...§§ 28.37(3), 213.131, 215.20, 142.01, 960.21. For example, Fla. Stat. § 938.01(1) requires felons to pay $3 as a court cost, and that sum is remitted to the Department of Revenue for, among other things, a domestic violence program and a law-enforcement training fund. Similarly, Fla. Stat. § 938.05 imposes a flat $225 fee in every felony case, $200 of which is used to fund the clerk’s office and $25 of which is remitted to the Florida Department of Revenue for deposit in the state’s general revenue fund....

...n-Costs- Florida's-Criminal-Justice-Fees.pdf. 193  Case: 20-12003 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 194 of 200 convicted of a felony. See Jordan Dissent at 114 (citing Fla. Stat. § 938.05(1)(a)). Some financial obligations are actually imposed based on indigency: For example, Florida charges $50 to apply for a public defender, a constitutionally-required service for which only indigent defendants qualify.6 See Gideon v....

SLEET, Judge. Shannon Stephen appeals his convictions and sentences for DUI manslaughter and leaving the scene of a crash involving death. Stephen correctly argues that the trial court erred in awarding $225 under section 938.05(1), Florida Statutes (2005)....

...Stephen preserved this issue by filing a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion. We affirm his remaining issue on appeal without further comment. We review the statutory requirements for imposing assessments under section *269 938.05 de novo....

...The State properly concedes error on this issue. The controlling statute is the version that was in effect at the time of the offense. See Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394, 395 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Because the offense date in this case was March 26, 2006, section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005), controls....

PER CURIAM. Appellant raises four minor sentencing errors in this Anders appeal: (1) imposition of a $230 cost pursuant to section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2009), when the statutory maximum is $225; (2) imposition of a $415 cost pursuant to section 775.083(2) when the statutory maximum is $50; (3) imposition of the $100 cost of prosecution without citing the statu...

...2d 1016, 1017 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)). “If this does not occur, and discretionary costs are made a condition of probation, they are to be stricken, and cannot be re-imposed.” Id.; see also Justice v. State, 674 So. 2d 123, 126 (Fla. 1996). Pursuant to section 938.05(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2019), the trial court is required to assess court costs of $225 for a felony conviction....

...reimpose discretionary fees above the mandatory amounts assessed for prosecution costs and court costs . . . .” In our pre-Richards opinion in Desrosiers, under the heading “Court Costs,” we discussed both section 938.27(8) prosecution costs and section 938.05(1) court costs and stated “[o]n remand, courts may reimpose discretionary costs if they are supported by the requisite factual findings. 286 So. 3d at 300. There are no discretionary costs provided by section 938.05(1), and the two cases cited for support of the “may reimpose 6  (4) Drug Trust Fund assessment of $125....

...costs and/or public defender fees under sections 938.27(8) and 938.29(1), respectively. See Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178, 181 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018); Brown v. State, 658 So. 2d 1058, 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). Thus, Desrosiers does not support a consideration of discretionary section 938.05(1) court costs on remand. 7 when it fails to satisfy a legal obligation the first time around.” 288 So....

For the violation of any criminal offense, section 938.05 imposes from $50.00 to $200.00, for the benefit

...The trial court then stated that the total amount Redman owed was $997, which is $25 more than the combined total of the amounts previously stated. In its written Judgment and Sentence, the trial court imposed $796 for fines and court costs, citing sections 939.185, 938.05, 938.19, 938.05, 938.01, 938.06, 938.04, 775.083, 318.18, 939.185, and 938.27, Florida Statutes (2023), as authority for doing so, and also imposed a $201 domestic batterer’s surcharge, for a total of $997 in fines and costs. Redman appealed, and while his appeal was pending, Redman filed in the trial court a motion to correct sentencing error, wherein he requested a breakdown of the lump sum court costs imposed because section 938.05 was cited twice and section 318.18 pertains only to traffic infractions....

...2 The trial court did not cite any basis for these costs at Redman’s sentencing hearing. The State speculates that because the statutes cited in the final order allow for the imposition of costs greater than $296, this Court should affirm. However, Redman correctly notes that the trial court cited section 938.05 twice and included reference to section 318.18, which the State concedes relates only to traffic infractions....

...Hamel, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. ON CONFESSION OF ERROR PER CURIAM. On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by imposing: (1) a sentence for misdemeanor possession of cannabis in excess of the statutory maximum; (2) court costs for that offense under section 938.05(1)(b), Florida Statutes (2017), after imposing costs under the same statutory provision for a companion felony charge in the case; and (3) costs under section 318.18, Florida Statutes (2017), when no traffic offense was charged in the case....

...We agree that all but one of the challenged costs require reversal and correction of the judgment. 5  In both Case No. 16-3306CF10A and Case No. 16-5007CF10A, the $60 charges for the misdemeanor counts under section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2016), must be stricken because section 938.05 allows imposition of court costs per case, not per count....

...State, 215 So. 3d 55, 58 (Fla. 2017) (“If the Legislature intended to impose costs per case [under sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006)], it could have expressly done so as it has in other cost statutes. See, e.g., . . . § 938.05(1), Fla....

...[T]he Court will re-impose $165 and specify that those costs came from the mandatory court costs in 938.01, which is the clearing trust fund, $3, crimes compensation trust fund of 938.03 in the amount of $50, the additional court costs for felonies, 938.05, in the amount of $112, for a total of $165. On appeal, C.S. argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005). The State correctly concedes error on the cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Fla.2006) (holding that section 938.05 does not apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings). In V.K.E., the supreme court reasoned that an adult sanction, cost, or surcharge is not applicable in a juvenile delinquency proceeding unless the relevant statute expressly states otherwise. Id. Like section 938.05, section 938.01 makes no mention of juvenile delinquency proceedings. Therefore, both the $3 surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.01 and the $112 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05 should be stricken....

...Nothing in the record demonstrates the court imposed this cost as a term of probation. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency as well as the $50 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.03. We reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05....

...[T]he Court will re-impose $165 and specify that those costs came from the mandatory court costs in 938.01, which is the clearing trust fund, $3, crimes compensation trust fund of 938.03 in the amount of $50, the additional court costs for felonies, 938.05, in the amount of $112, for a total of $165. On appeal, C.S. argues that the trial court erred in imposing costs pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05, Florida Statutes (2005). The State correctly concedes error on the cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05. See V.K.E. v. State, 934 So.2d 1276, 1282 (Fla.2006) (holding that section 938.05 does not apply in juvenile delinquency proceedings). In V.K.E., the supreme court reasoned that an adult sanction, cost, or surcharge is not applicable in a juvenile delinquency proceeding unless the relevant statute expressly states otherwise. Id. Like section 938.05, section 938.01 makes no mention of juvenile delinquency proceedings. Therefore, both the $3 surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.01 and the $112 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05 should be stricken....

...Nothing in the record demonstrates the court imposed this cost as a term of probation. Accordingly, we affirm the adjudication of delinquency as well as the $50 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.03. We reverse and remand with instructions that the trial court strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.01 and 938.05....

...during the sentencing hearing). On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fine and surcharge after following the proper procedure. See Rohn v. State, 288 So. 3d 783, 784 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020). We also strike the $100 misdemeanor cost imposed by the trial court under section 938.05, Florida Statutes, because the trial court also imposed a $225 felony cost under that provision. See Ayos v. State, 275 So. 3d 178, 182 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) (“[S]ection 938.05 allows imposition of court costs per case, not per count.”); Anguille v. State, 238 So. 3d 856, 856 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (holding that the trial court erred in imposing court costs for misdemeanor cannabis possession under section 938.05(1)(b) “after imposing costs under the same statutory provision for a companion felony charge in the case”). However, Appellant’s challenge to the $100 cost of prosecution was, as Appellant acknowledges on appeal, properly rejected by the trial court given our decision in Parks v....

...Germanowicz, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee. PER CURIAM. In this Anders appeal, we affirm appellant’s resentencing but remand for the trial court to modify one cost amount. Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); § 938.05(1), Fla. Stat. (1999). As pointed out by appellant’s counsel, the requirement that appellant pay $225 to the Local Criminal Justice Trust Fund must be modified to reflect an amount of $200, as authorized by section 938.05(1), Florida Statutes (1999), the applicable statute at the time of appellant’s offenses....

...y the agency.” Parks, 371 So. 3d at 392–93. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s imposition of the $100 cost under section 938.27(8). II. Next, Hartfield challenges the imposition of a $100 cost under section 938.05(1)(b), Florida Statutes, because he was not convicted of a misdemeanor. The State concedes, and we agree, that the misdemeanor cost was improperly imposed. Accordingly, we reverse the imposition of the $100 cost under section 938.05(1)(b)....

...findings by the trial court. Here, too, the State concedes error. We agree. Section 938.29(1)(a) provides that * At the time of Hartfield’s offenses, a person was required to pay as a cost $225 for felonies and $60 for misdemeanors. § 938.05(1), Fla....

...proof of higher fees or costs incurred” as required by the statute. Accordingly, we reverse this imposition. IV. Last, Hartfield challenges the imposition of a $100 Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) fee under section 938.055, Florida Statutes, arguing the imposition was improper because the State did not request it. The State maintains the cost is mandatory. We disagree with both readings of the statute. Section 938.055 states that [A] court may assess a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere ....

...This amount shall be assessed if the services of a local county-operated crime laboratory enumerated in s. 943.35(1) are used in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a violation of any provision of chapters 775-896. § 938.055, Fla....

...But a trial court must afford the defendant notice and an opportunity to be heard before it may impose a discretionary cost at sentencing. See Nix v. State, 84 So. 3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). Because no notice and an opportunity to be heard on the cost was provided, the $100 cost under section 938.055 is reversed....

...The appellant’s counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). We affirm the appellant’s conviction and sentence, but reverse and remand for correction of a statutorily excessive fine. Section 938.05(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2011), mandates a $225 fine for felony convictions. Here, the court imposed a $230 fine. We reverse the imposition of the $230 fine in violation of section 938.05(l)(a) and remand with instructions to reduce the fine to $225 and correct the judgment accordingly....

...Appellee. PER CURIAM.  In this Anders* appeal, having independently reviewed the because the court assessed two additional court costs, we reverse cost and remand with instructions for the court to strike that assessment from the costs order. See § 938.05, Fla....

...The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred.” § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2019). Further, “[a]ny person … being found guilty of[] any felony … shall pay as a cost in the case, in addition to any other cost required to be imposed by law, … $225.” § 938.05(1)(a), Fla....

charged twice for the costs associated with section 938.05(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018). This Court

...y to the requirements of the applicable versions of the authorizing statutes. At sentencing, the trial court ordered Appellant to pay various charges, costs, and fees. In pertinent part, they are $225.00 as an “additional court cost” pursuant to section 938.05, Florida Statutes; $50.00 as a crime prevention court cost pursuant to section 775.083(2), ■ Florida Statutes; and $20.00 as a court cost surcharge in addition to any fine pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes....

...lines in effect at the beginning, rather than the end, of the continuing criminal activity). We agree with Appellant’s position. In March 2003, the amount of the assessment that could be imposed for crime *1186 prevention was $200.00 for a felony. § 938.05(1)(a), Fla....

...-We therefore strike the assessment of $225.00 and direct the trial court to substitute a $200.00 court cost under the applicable version of the statute. Clavelle v. State, 80 So.3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Swift v. State, 53 So.3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011) (reducing assessment to the amount permitted under the version of section 938.05(1)(a) in effect at the time of the offenses)....

...The correct statutory authorities are as follows: 1) Section 938.03, Florida Statutes (2007), Crimes Compensation Trust Fund; 2) Section 938.01(1), Additional Court Cost Clearing Trust Fund; 3) Section 938.15, Criminal Justice Education for Local Government; 4) Section 938.05(l)(a), Additional Court Costs for Felonies; 5) Section 938.27(1), Judgment for Costs on Conviction; (includes prosecution/investigative costs); and 6) Section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), Assessment of Additional Court Costs and Surcharges....