Hill v. State, 2D02-666.
| Decision Date | 16 May 2003 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D02-666.,2D02-666. |
| Citation | 845 So.2d 310 |
| Parties | David HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Celene Humphries, Special Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ronald Napolitano, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
David Hill challenges the court's imposition of $300 in investigative costs for the Pinellas Park Police Department. The State concedes error because the State failed to document its request for costs. See Tucker v. State, 832 So.2d 840 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002).
In requesting costs, the prosecutor merely stated: "And the Pinellas Park Police Department is asking for $300 in investigative costs." No documentation was presented in support of this request, contrary to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2000), which allows the court to impose the costs of prosecution, "including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies ... if requested and documented by such agencies."
Although Hill did not object at sentencing to the imposition of these investigative costs, he did raise this issue in his motion filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), which the trial court denied.
Accordingly, we strike the $300 in investigative costs and remand to the trial court with directions that such costs may be reimposed following the State's production of the required documentation pursuant to Reyes v. State, 655 So.2d 111, 114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995). See Tucker, 832 So.2d at 841; Taylor v. State, 821 So.2d 404, 405 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); Welch v. State, 724 So.2d 651 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999).
Costs stricken; remanded.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Munoz v. State, 5D03-1634.
...to be heard"). Such costs may be reimposed if the state can produce the required documentation at a noticed hearing. Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Terry v. State, 791 So.2d 1162 (Fla. 1st DCA We affirm the convictions, strike the imposition of costs, and remand to provide......
-
Hall v. State
...the State failed to document its request for costs. See Howard v. State, 920 So.2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Tucker v. State, 832 So.2d 840, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA Because the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the amount of c......
-
Howard v. State, 2D04-4151.
...court erred in imposing $25 in costs of prosecution because the State failed to document its request for costs. See Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310, 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Tucker v. State, 832 So.2d 840, 840 (Fla. 2d DCA Although Howard did not object at sentencing to the imposition of these ......
-
Major v. State
...further proceedings. On remand, these costs may be reimposed provided the state can produce proper documentation. See Hill v. State, 845 So.2d 310 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Pagliuca v. State, 860 So.2d 1095 (Fla. 5th DCA AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; REMANDED GUNTHER, POLEN and GROSS, JJ., ......