Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...nce .... (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....

...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. Stat. § 938.06 ; and (3) a $50 fine under Fla....

...nce .... (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....

...The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a $10 surcharge under section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009), and a $20 court cost under section 934.06, Florida Statutes (2009). Section 938.04(1) authorizes a five percent surcharge on "any fine for any criminal offense prescribed by law." Section 938.06(1) authorizes a $20 court cost "in addition to any fine prescribed by law." In the instant case, because the trial court erred in imposing the $200 fine, the trial court also erred in imposing the $10 surcharge and the $20 court cost and both must be stricken....

...Thus, we reverse the imposition of the $525 fine and surcharge and remand with directions that they be stricken. See, e.g., Willits v. State, 884 So.2d 73, 74 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (remanding for trial court to strike fine and surcharge and noting that defendant's presence at resentencing was not required). Relying on section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2004), the trial court also imposed a $20 mandatory cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. Section 938.06(1) authorizes this cost as "an additional surcharge" to "any fine prescribed by law." Because the $500 fine discussed above was not properly imposed, the trial court could not impose the additional $20 surcharge under section 938.06....

...In accordance with In re Anders Briefs, 581 So.2d 149 (Fla.1991) (contemplating use of "the Anders procedure ... even when costs or other minor sentencing errors are raised in `no merit' briefs"), we affirm appellant's conviction and sentence. We also affirm all costs imposed, except the $20.00 assessed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2001), for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund....

...Accordingly, we REVERSE the imposition of the fees and remand to allow Kirby ... opportunity to be heard on the amount of the fee."). We remand to allow appellant an opportunity to be heard on the amount of the fee. We strike the $20.00 surcharge imposed pursuant to section 938.06 for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund because the statute authorizes imposition of the surcharge only when a sentencing court has levied a "fine prescribed by law for any criminal offense." § 938.06(1), Fla....

...[3] Accordingly, the conviction and sentence are affirmed. Imposition of the public defender's fee and lien is reversed, with directions that appellant be given an opportunity to be heard as to the amount of any fee before imposition on remand. Imposition of the $20.00 cost, pursuant to section 938.06, is reversed....

...nd correcting Sanders’ sentence to reflect that he was sentenced as a PRR on only one of the lewd or lascivious molestation counts. The court denied the motion with respect to the $20 surcharge for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2009), and the $100 cost of prosecution imposed pursuant to section 938.27(8)....

...Sanders was also charged with, and found guilty of, false imprisonment and providing obscene material to a minor. He does not challenge his convictions or sentences for these offenses. . Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 , 52 S.Ct. 180 , 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932). . We recognize that, effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund is a mandatory court cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed....

...2006). We agree. See Masengale v. State, 969 So.2d 1218, 1219 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007); Dadds v. State, 946 So.2d 1129, 1130 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Likewise, the trial court erred by imposing the two $20 mandatory costs towards the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. Section 938.06(1) authorizes the cost as "an additional surcharge" to "any fine prescribed by law." Because the $525 in fines and surcharges were not properly imposed, the additional $20 costs under section 938.06 must also fail....

...In two motions filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), Kimball challenged the $2 assessment for the Criminal Justice Education Fund, authorized by section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2004), and the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund, authorized by section 938.06....

...tice education degree programs and training courses." § 938.15. Accordingly, we reject Kimball's challenge to the $2 assessment. The trial court erred, however, in denying Kimball's challenge to the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund. Section 938.06(1) authorizes this assessment as "an additional surcharge" to "any fine prescribed by law." Where, as here, no fine was imposed, no surcharge could be applied....

...However, we find the trial court erred in imposing, in the written judgment and sentence; a $2,100 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009); a 5% surcharge in the amount of $105 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2009); and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009)....

...In this case, however, the trial court did not orally pronounce this fine at the sentencing hearing. Therefore, this fine must be stricken. Dadds, 946 So.2d at 1130. The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a $20 mandatory cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 938.06(1) authorizes this cost as "an additional surcharge" to "any fine prescribed by law." Here, because the $175 fine was not properly imposed, the trial court could not impose the additional $20 surcharge under section 938.06....

...On remand the court should reduce this charge to the $200 amount as authorized in the statute which was in effect on the date of the offense. See Torres v. State, 42 So.3d 914 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). The court also imposed a $20 charge as "Additional Court Costs" for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund, under section 938.06, Florida Statutes, which provides that this assessment is to be made in "addition to any fine...." See § 938.06(1), Fla. Stat. However, the appellant was sentenced as a habitual offender without any fine, and because no fine was imposed this section 938.06 assessment may not be made....

...egarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...ent. Youman filed a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion challenging the imposition of the $100 cost for indigent legal assistance pursuant to section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, in all six cases....

...Counsel asserts also that, where the trial court imposed no fine, it was error to add the $20 cost as an “additional surcharge” in 1D12-2470 and 1D12-2472, which involved January 2009 offenses. This is true under the particular facts of these two cases. See § 938.06(1), Fla. Stat. (2008); Kirkland,, 106 So.3d at 5 ; cf. Spear v. State, 109 So.3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (rehearing en banc) (finding no error in imposing the $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, as amended, effective July 1, 2010). Accordingly, we strike the $100 indigent legal assistance lien imposed under section 938.29(l)(a), Florida Statutes, and the $20 court cost imposed under section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2008), in 1D12-2470 and 1D12-2472, and remand for correction of the sentencing errors....

...r a new sentencing hearing. . The judgment and sentence contains a scrivener’s error listing the five-percent surcharge as $420 when it should have been $52.50. . Previously, the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes, would have been stricken as well. However, effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06 was amended to provide, that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund is a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed....

...We first find the trial court erred by imposing in the written judgment and sentence a $1,050 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes; a 5 percent surcharge in the amount of $52.50 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes; and a $20 court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes....

...nt; (2) the warrant that was later issued was insufficient because it was not supported by lawfully acquired probable cause; and (3) the affidavit in support of the warrant was not *1023 subscribed by the affiant, Detective Hernandez, as mandated by section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2007)....

...nce .... (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....

...As this court has previously held, this fee must be stricken and, on remand, the trial court shall advise Appellant of his right to a hearing to contest the Public Defender fee. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138, 139 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, as the trial court did not impose a fine, pursuant to section 938.06(1), Fla....

...We note that if the trial court determines it will not impose any of the above fees, it is not necessary to conduct another sentencing proceeding which would require Appellant’s presence. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED. WOLF, THOMAS, and MARSTILLER, JJ., concur. "We recognize that, effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund is a mandatory court cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed....

...RIAM. We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our original opinion in this case, and sua sponte consider the case en banc. This case addresses whether the $20 court cost imposed for crime stoppers programs in criminal cases pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2010), is mandatory regardless of whether any fine is imposed. Prior to July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) provided in part, “In addition to any fine prescribed by law for any criminal offense, there is hereby assessed as a court cost an additional surcharge of $20 on such fine, which shall be imposed by all county and circuit courts a...

...1st DCA 2012); Clavelle v. State, 80 So.3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Mallory v. State, 70 So.3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). The Legislature amended section 938.06(1) effective July 1, 2010, to provide *233 that “[i]n addition to any fine prescribed by law, when a person is convicted of any criminal offense, the county or circuit court shall assess a court cost of $20.” Thereafter, we issued opinions in seven cases, which were consolidated for briefing purposes and where the State conceded error on the subject, striking the $20 cost imposed pursuant to the 2010 version of section 938.06 because no fine was imposed....

...State, 98 So.3d 234, 235 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 232, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So.3d 231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In doing so, we cited to our Pullam opinion, which addressed section 938.06 prior to the amendment. One day after the Pruitt decisions were issued, we set forth as dicta in Sanders v. State, 101 So.3d 373 , 377 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), that effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund was a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed. Reconsidering this issue en banc, we recede from our Pruitt decisions with respect to section 938.06 and determine that the reasoning as set forth in Sanders is correct....

...Additionally, “[b]ecause this fine was erroneously imposed, the surcharge under section 938.04, which is based on the amount of fine, must also be reversed.” Id. Similarly, under the relevant version of the statute, because the trial court erred in imposing the fine, the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06 must also be stricken....

...1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence for grand theft. However, because the trial court struck the fíne imposed and because the offense occurred between May 2007 and February 2008, the $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes, must also be stricken....

...State, 70 So.3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So.2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); see also Spear v. State, 109 So.3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (holding that the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06(1) is mandatory whether or not a fine is imposed for offenses committed after the July 1, 2010, effective date of the amendment to the statute)....

...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. Stat. § 938.06; and (3) a $50 fine under Fla....

...several statutory fines and costs. First, the imposition of the $2100 fine pursuant to section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes (2007), the associated surcharge of $105 pursuant to section 938.04, Florida Statutes (2007), and the $20 cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2007), was erroneous because the trial court did not individually pronounce the discretionary $2100 fine during sentencing....

...egarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...ing the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Additionally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...egarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...regarding the amount remains”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...egarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...egarding the amount remains.”). On remand, the state may not seek to reimpose these costs because they were not requested. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). Finally, we strike the imposition of the $20 cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2010), because no fine was imposed....

...In this appeal brought pursuant to Anders v. California, 886 U.S. 738 , 87 S.Ct. 1396 , 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), we affirm Appellant’s convictions and sentences. However, we reverse and remand the Corrected Judgment for the trial court to strike the $20 court cost imposed under section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (cost for crime stoppers programs), see Clavelle v. State, 80 So.3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012) (holding that assessment authorized by section 938.06(1) may only be imposed if court also imposes a fine), and to correct a scrivener’s error on Appellant’s Criminal Punishment Code Score Sheet to reflect a primary offense date of July 18, 2009....

...State, 91 So.3d 268 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). On remand, the trial court may only reimpose the lien if it provides the appellant with the requisite notice. See Vaughn v. State, 65 So.3d 138 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). We also strike the $20 court cost imposed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009), because no fine was properly imposed....

benefit of the Fine and Forfeiture Fund, and section 938.06 imposes, as a court cost, a $20.00 surcharge

...orally pronounced at sentencing, (2) imposing a $2,000 fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009), without an oral pronouncement, (3) imposing a $100 surcharge on the fine pursuant to section 938.04, (4) imposing a $20 surcharge on the fine pursuant to section 938.06, and (5) imposing a $100 indigent legal assistance lien pursuant to section 938.29, without informing him of his right to a hearing to dispute the amount of the lien....

...oral pronouncement did not delineate the specific costs and fines included in the amount. As a result, the imposition of the $2000 discretionary fine pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2009), and the surcharges imposed on that fine pursuant to sections 938.04 and 938.06,1 must be reversed....

..., because the appellant was not informed of his right to a hearing to dispute the amount of the lien. See Harrison v. State, 146 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014). On remand, the trial court may either enter a 1 Effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06 was amended to provide that the $20 assessment is a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine. See Spear v....

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence. However, we find the trial court erred in imposing a $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009)....

the following question: Does the language in section 938.06, Florida Statutes, as amended by section 31

...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....

...State, 963 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). On remand the trial court may re-impose this fine after making appropriate findings. Love, 992 So.2d at 824 . Given the State’s proper concession of error, we strike the $20.00 assessed as an additional surcharge pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2003)....

...nd. The original written judgment for fines and costs included a $175 fine under section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2006). In addition, the written judgment for fines and costs included a $20 cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund in accordance with section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...However, the order failed to address the $20 surcharge, and the amended judgment for *125 fines and costs still contains this surcharge. On appeal, Ms. Smith argues that the trial court erroneously failed to strike the $20 cost in addition to the $175 fine. Ms. Smith is correct, and the State properly concedes error. Section 938.06(1) authorizes the additional $20 cost as "an additional surcharge" "to any fine prescribed by law." Because the $175 fine was not properly imposed, the trial court could not impose the additional $20 surcharge....

...No other issue merits discussion. AFFIRMED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER AMENDED COURT COST/FEE ORDER. LAWSON, JACOBUS and BERGER, JJ., concur. . §§ 784.045(l)(a)2., 775.087(2), Fla. Stat. (2010). . We recognize that, effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund is a mandatory court cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed....

PER CURIAM. We affirm appellant’s convictions and sentences without discussion. However, the trial court could not impose the additional surcharge of $20 pursuant to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2009), because the court struck all fines imposed on appellant when it granted his rule 3.800(b)(2) motion....