938.055
Operating Trust Fund of the Department of Law Enforcement.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
938.055 Operating Trust Fund of the Department of Law Enforcement.—Notwithstanding any other law, the court may assess a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is convicted of, a violation of any provision of chapters 775-896, without regard to whether adjudication was withheld, in addition to any fine and other penalty provided or authorized by law, an amount of $100, to be paid to the clerk of the court, who shall forward it to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Operating Trust Fund of the Department of Law Enforcement to be used by the statewide criminal analysis laboratory system for the purposes specified in s. 943.361. 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.
History.—s. 20, ch. 97-271; s. 24, ch. 2001-122; s. 21, ch. 2005-128; s. 1, ch. 2012-125.
Note.—Former s. 938.25.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2016–2025 · leading case: Taylor v. State
Taylor v. State (2017)
“See § 938.055, Fla. Stat. (2014). As such, the excess costs were discretionary and the court was required to make an oral pronouncement of such costs and the basis for exceeding the statutorily authorized amount.”
Cain v. State (2016)
“We affirm Appellant’s ' judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine, but based on thé state’s proper concession of error in response to our Harrison or'der, 1 we reverse the imposition of the 0 cost for the FDLE Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055,…”
Montanez v. State (2019)
“We affirm Juan Francisco Montanez's judgment and sentence for trafficking in twenty-eight grams or more of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia, but we reverse and remand the imposition of the 0 cost for the FDLE Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055,…”
Joseph Youngblood v. State of Florida (2024)
“00 x 4) cost pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (FDLE Operating Trust Fund) in L.”
Hwang v. State (2017)
“The correct statutory citation should be section 938.055, Florida Statutes (2012), which became effective October 1, 2012.”
Bookertee Hartfield v. State of Florida (2024)
“§ 938.055, Fla. Stat. (emphasis supplied).”
JOHN ALLISON HARRIS v. STATE OF FLORIDA (2021)
“§ 938.055, Fla. Stat. (2019) (utilizing the word “shall” when mentioning this cost).”
Montanez v. State (2019)
“We affirm Juan Francisco Montanez's judgment and sentence for trafficking in twenty-eight grams or more of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia, but we reverse and remand the imposition of the 0 cost for the FDLE Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055,…”
William Henry Cain v. State of Florida (2016)
“We affirm Appellant’s judgment and sentence for sale or delivery of cocaine, but based on the state’s proper concession of error in response to our Harrison order,1 we reverse the imposition of the 0 cost for the FDLE Operating Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.055, Florida…”
Neftali Dominguez Zenon v. State of Florida (2024)
“27, Florida Statutes (2022), and 0 operating trust fund pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (2022).”
Loveus Thevenin v. State of Florida (2025)
“Appellant’s sixth issue argues the trial court erred by imposing the Operating Trust Fund of the Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE Operating Trust Fund”) costs of 0 per charge, pursuant to section 938.055, Florida Statutes (2021), without having included those costs in the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.