Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...State, 162 So.3d 274 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). In a separate opinion, the district court, on a motion to certify the question, certified the following question as one of great public importance: ARE THE COSTS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 938.085, 938.08, AND 938.10, FLORIDA STATUTES (2006), ASSESSED “PER CASE” OR “PER COUNT”? McNeil v. State, 163 So.3d 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. For the reasons that follow, we answer the certified question by holding that sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), call for imposition of costs on a per count basis and approve the decision in McNeil, 162 So.3d 274 ....

...ndere to three counts of sexual battery of a child under the age of twelve by a person under the age of eighteen in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Stat *57 utes (2006), which requires costs to be imposed under sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10; and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5), Florida Statutes (2006), which requires costs to be imposed under section 938.10. The court imposed costs for each of the four convictions, resulting in costs of $603 pursuant to section 938.08, $453 pursuant to section 938.085, and $404 pursuant to section 938.10(1)....

...784.07, s. 784.08, s. 784.081, s. 784.082, s. 784.083, s. 784.085, or s. 794.011, the court shall impose a surcharge of $151. Payment of the surcharge shall be a condition of probation, community control, or any other court-ordered supervision .... 938.10 Additional court cost imposed in cases of certain crimes against minors.— (1) If a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, any offense against a minor in violation of s....

...The district court concluded that the plain language of these statutes reflects that the Legislature intended to impose costs per count, not per case: By the plain language of these statutes, sections 938.08 and 938.085 require costs to be assessed for “a violation” of an enumerated statute, while section 938.10 requires assessment of costs for a nolo contendere or guilty plea to “any offense” enumerated in the statute....

...ts reasonable and obvious implications.” Id. at 196 . Therefore, we first look to the plain language of the statutes at issue in this case to determine whether they convey a clear and obvious meaning. Plain Meaning of Sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1) We agree with the district court’s conclusion that costs imposed under sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), should be assessed per count, not per case....

...t of the costs of prosecution.... ”). (Emphasis added.) Section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1993), which has since been repealed, also contained similar language. 2 The Legislature chose not to include such language in sections 938.085, 938.08, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006)....

...In other words, sections 938.08 and 938.085, Florida Statutes (2006), mandate that a court impose a surcharge for each violation of the enumerated statutes, in addition to any sanction. Thus, multiple violations would result in multiple surcharges. Similarly, “any offense” in section 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), plainly means that costs should be imposed for every offense that would constitute a violation of one of the enumerated statutes....

...5th DCA 1994) (holding that a plain reading of section 27.3455(1), Florida Statutes (1991), calls for costs to be imposed “in the case”). However, these decisions are not inconsistent with our decision today. As previously noted, these cases did not involve sections 938.085, 938.08, or 938.10, Florida Statutes (2006), nor did the disputed statutes in those cases contain the critical language at issue here—“a violation” or “any offense.” Rather, the relevant statutes in the decisions relied upon by McNeil use the terms “per case” or “in the case,” language that is notably absent in sections 938.085, 938.08, and 938.10, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...Moreover, the costs were assessed pursuant to section 27.3455, Florida Statutes (1993), the same statute that was at issue in Mills, which explicitly provided for the imposition of costs “in the case.” Again, in the present case, sections 938.085, 938.08, and 938.10, Florida Statutes (2006), do not provide for the imposition of costs “per case,” but instead impose additional costs for “a violation” or “any offense.” Therefore, we conclude that the precedent relied upon by McNeil is distinguishable and does not compel a similar result here. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, we approve the decision of the Fifth District and hold that sections 938.085, 938.08, or 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), require an imposition of costs per count....

...On remand, the trial court may reimpose the fee provided it follows proper procedure by giving Gonzalez notice of its intent to reimpose the fee and an opportunity to be heard on the issue. See Bruno v. State, 960 So.2d 907, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). Finally, the written judgment and sentence imposed a $100 cost pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2007). That cost was not mentioned at the sentencing hearing. Gonzalez filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to rule 3.800(b)(2), but the trial court did not rule on this issue. Section 938.10 imposes a cost in certain cases involving crimes against minors. Because this case did not involve a crime against minors, we reverse imposition of this cost and direct the trial court to strike it. See Brown v. State, 963 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (finding error in imposition of cost pursuant to section 938.10 where the victim was not a minor)....

...egree murder and remand the case for a new trial on that charge. We reverse the $1500 public defender fee, which the court may reimpose after following the proper procedures. We also direct the trial court to strike the $100 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10....

...However, the trial court may reimpose this fine if it determines that Love has the ability to pay. See Clark, 963 So.2d at 913; see also Broadnax v. State, 987 So.2d 160, 161 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (citing Clark ). The trial court imposed a $16.25 cost pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2004). The trial court must strike this cost on remand because Love did not commit one of the offenses required for the statute to apply. See § 938.10(1)....

...We remand for the trial court to strike the fine and three of the costs that it had imposed, subject to the court reimposing the fine and one of the costs, as discussed above. Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. DAVIS, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, Concur. NOTES [1] Section 938.10 became effective on July 1, 2004, after Love committed attempted voluntary manslaughter....

...See Ortiz v. State, 884 So.2d 77 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004). On remand, this cost may be reimposed if the statutory requirements are met. See Diaz v. State, 901 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). The State further concedes error in the $16.25 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2004), which authorizes the imposition of additional costs in cases of certain crimes against minors, because the victim was not a minor....

...3d at 426. Next, the additional cost imposed pursuant to section 938.05, Florida Statutes (2007), must be reduced from $225 to $200. Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Swift v. State, 53 So. 3d 394 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011). Similarly, the additional cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2007), must be reduced from $151 to $101. Finally, the $100 mandatory cost of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2008), must be stricken because appellant’s offenses were comm...

...The child has been adjudicated delinquent and assessed a fíne and the child is required to pay $.to the Crime Prevention Trust Fund, under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes. . The child has committed an enumerated crime against a minor and the child is required to pay $.. under section 938.10, Florida Statutes....

...The trial court had granted Haddock's motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), but no corrections have been made. Therefore, we remand for the trial court to correct the costs by removing the cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2016), and to reduce the cost imposed pursuant to section 938.085 from $453 to $302....

$101 for the Child Advocacy Trust Fund under section 938.10(1), effective July 1, 2004.

...Dixon argues his convictions for both lewd or lascivious molestation and lewd or lascivious conduct violated his right of freedom from double jeopardy. As to this issue we affirm without further discussion. Dixon additionally appeals the trial court’s assessment of costs under section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2014), per count, rather than per case....

...Dixon argues the trial court should have assessed costs per case. When he was sentenced, Dixon was ordered to pay mandatory surcharges of $151, pursuant to section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2014); $201, pursuant to ■ section 938.08, Florida Statutes (2014); and $303, pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2014). The trial court imposed costs per case under sections 938.08 and 938:085. However, costs under section 938.10 were imposed per count. Dixon filed a motion to correct sentencing error contending, among other things, that the imposition of costs under section 938.10 should have also been imposed per case rather than per'count....

...e imposed per count rather than per case. We affirm pursuant to McNeil . This court certified the following question to the Florida Supreme Court as a matter of great public importance: ARE THE COSTS IMPOSED PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 938.085, 938.08, AND 938.10, FLORIDA STATUTES (2006), ASSESSED “PER CASE” OR “PER COUNT”? McNeil v. State, 163 So.3d 661, 661 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015). The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction to review this court’s decision in McNeil. We again certify as a matter of great public importance the same question, but only as to section 938.10. We note that the imposition of costs per case under sections 938.085 and 938.08 has not been raised as an issue in this appeal. We further note that while the certified question in McNeil involved the 2006 version of section 938.10, the pertinent provisions of the 2014 version are essentially the same....

...The child has been adjudicated delinquent and assessed a fine and the child is required to pay $.to the Crime Prevention Trust Fund, under section 775.083121. Florida Statutes. The child has committed an enumerated crime against a minor and the child is reouired to pav $.under section 938.10, Florida Statutes....

...rd- degree felony); and one count of exposure of sexual organs, in violation of section 800.03, Florida Statutes (2021) (a first-degree misdemeanor). The only error apparent on the face of the record is a $151 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2021), for the violation of section 800.03. The trial court imposed one $151 court cost under the statute for each of the two offenses to which Henslee pled. But section 938.10 authorizes the cost only for the child abuse count, not for the exposure of sexual organs count. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment and sentence except as to the imposition of the $151 court cost imposed for the violation of section 800.03, which is stricken....

Against Minors” court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2024). As the state concedes

...r surcharges when an individual is convicted of certain specified crimes. Among these statutes are section 938.08, Florida Statutes (2006), which imposes a $201 surcharge; section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2006), which imposes a $151 surcharge; and section 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), which imposes a $101 court cost....

...Brenton McNeil pled nolo contendere to three counts of sexual battery of a child under the age of twelve by a person under the age of eighteen in violation of section 794.011(2), Florida Statutes (2006), which requires costs to be imposed under sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10; and one count of lewd or lascivious molestation in violation of section 800.04(5), Florida Statutes (2006), which requires costs to be imposed under section 938.10. The court imposed costs for each of the four convictions, resulting in costs of $603 pursuant to section 938.08, $453 pursuant to section 938.085, and $404 pursuant to section 938.10(1)....

...every defendant convicted of a similar offense.” Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 116 . (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Waller v. State, 911 So.2d 226, 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2006), provide: 938.08 Additional cost to fund programs in domestic violence....

..., or is found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, a violation of ... s. 794.011, the court shall impose a surcharge of $151. Payment of the surcharge shall be a condition of probation, community control, or any other court-ordered supervision.... 938.10 Additional court cost imposed in cases of certain crimes.— (1) If a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, regardless of adjudication, any offense against a minor in violation of ......

...800.04 ..., the court shall impose a court cost of $101 against the offender in addition to any other cost or penalty required by law. By the plain language of these statutes, sections 938.08 and 938.085 require costs to be assessed for “a violation” of an enumerated statute, while section 938.10 requires assessment of costs for a nolo con-tendere or guilty plea to “any offense” enumerated in the statute....

...The dictionary definition of “a” is “one, a certain, a particular.” The Random House Dictionary of the English Language 1 (1969 unabridged ed.). The definition of “any” is “one, a, an, or some.” Id. at 68. These definitions support the conclusion that the costs mandated in sections 938.08, 938.085, and 938.10 are assessed per count and not per case....

...Markham, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. February 21, 2025 PER CURIAM. In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we remand with instructions to strike the cost assessed pursuant to section 938.10, Florida Statutes (2022). 1 Anders v....

...In this appeal that is proceeding under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), we affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, we remand for the trial court to strike from the order for costs the sum of $151 that it assessed against Appellant pursuant to section 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2021). Pertinent here, this statute provides that if a person is found guilty of any offense against a minor in violation of chapter 794, Florida Statutes, the court shall impose a court cost of $151 against the...

...child is required tomust pay $.......... to the Crime Prevention Trust Fund, under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes. ..... The child has committed an enumerated crime against a minor and the child is required tomust pay $ .........., under section 938.10, Florida Statutes. ........

...uired to pay $.......... to the Crime Prevention Trust Fund, under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes. ..... The child has committed an enumerated crime against a minor and the child is required to pay $ .........., under section 938.10, Florida Statutes. ........

...We affirm in all respects; however, on the State's concession of error, we conclude that certain costs must be stricken from his sentencing documents. The trial court incorrectly imposed three costs. First, it imposed a cost of $100 pursuant to section 938.10(1), Florida Statutes (2012), which mandates costs if a person is found guilty of an offense against a minor in violation of chapter 794. Although Mr. Matthews was convicted of sexual battery under chapter 794, Mr. Matthews' victim was not a minor. Thus, section 938.10(1) is inapplicable, and the imposition of that cost was improper....