Florida Statutes

Fla. Stat. § 938.06 (2025)

Cost for crime stoppers programs.

✓ 2025 Florida Statutes — current through the 2025 Regular Session

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us JustiaFla. Statutes CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

938.06 Cost for crime stoppers programs.—

(1) In 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.

(2) The clerk of the court shall collect and forward, on a monthly basis, all costs assessed under this section, less $3 per assessment as a service charge to be retained by the clerk, to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund, to be used as provided in s. 16.555.

(3) As used in this section, the term “convicted” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a trial or the entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.

History.—s. 1, ch. 98-319; s. 22, ch. 2001-122; s. 125, ch. 2003-402; s. 31, ch. 2010-162.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2026 · leading case: Derrell J. Chamblee v. State of Florida, 905 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Derrell J. Chamblee v. State of Florida, 905 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2018). · cites it 2× “05 ; (2) a court cost under Fla. Stat. § 938.06 ; and (3) a fine under Fla.”

Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). · cites it 8× “” Thereafter, we issued opinions in seven cases, which were consolidated for briefing purposes and where the State conceded error on the subject, striking the cost imposed pursuant to the 2010 version of section 938.06 because no fine was imposed.”

Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). · cites it 6× “00 assessed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2001), for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund.”

Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). · cites it 3× “50 surcharge and correcting Sanders’ sentence to reflect that he was sentenced as a PRR on only one of the lewd or lascivious molestation counts.”

Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). · cites it 5× “The court also imposed a 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.”

Dadds v. State, 946 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). · cites it 4× “Relying on section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2004), the trial court also imposed a mandatory cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund.”

Youman v. State, 112 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). · cites it 7× “1st DCA 2013) (rehearing en banc) (finding no error in imposing the court cost pursuant to section 938.06, as amended, effective July 1, 2010).”

Kirkland v. State, 106 So. 3d 4 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). · cites it 2× “Finally, as the trial court did not impose a fine, pursuant to section 938.06(1), Fla. Stat (2009), the imposition of court costs must be stricken.”

Masengale v. State, 969 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007). · cites it 4× “The written judgment for fines and costs also includes a mandatory cost for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2005). Section 938.”

Perdue v. State, 17 So. 3d 1283 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009). · cites it 2× “” Because the 5 in fines and surcharges were not properly imposed, the additional costs under section 938.06 must also fail. Masengale, 969 So.”

Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011). · cites it 2× “04, Florida Statutes (2009); and a court cost pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2009). As the State properly concedes, the trial court failed orally to pronounce the fine; therefore, the imposition of the fine, surcharge, and cost was error.”

Moreno-Gonzalez v. State, 67 So. 3d 1020 (Fla. 2011). · cites it 2× “In support of the motion, Moreno-Gonzalez contended that: (1) the property was searched without a warrant; (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…”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— 938.06(1) — 17 cases

Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “50 surcharge and correcting Sanders’ sentence to reflect that he was sentenced as a PRR on only one of the lewd or lascivious molestation counts.”

Spear v. State, 109 So. 3d 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “” Thereafter, we issued opinions in seven cases, which were consolidated for briefing purposes and where the State conceded error on the subject, striking the cost imposed pursuant to the 2010 version of section 938.06 because no fine was imposed.”

Youman v. State, 112 So. 3d 693 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). “1st DCA 2013) (rehearing en banc) (finding no error in imposing the court cost pursuant to section 938.06, as amended, effective July 1, 2010).”

Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). “00 assessed pursuant to section 938.06, Florida Statutes (2001), for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund.”

Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). “The court also imposed a 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.”

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.