938.27
Judgment for costs of prosecution and investigation.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
938.27 Judgment for costs of prosecution and investigation.—
(1) In all criminal and violation-of-probation or community-control cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. The court shall include these costs in every judgment rendered against the convicted person. For purposes of this section, “convicted” means a determination of guilt, or of violation of probation or community control, which is a result of a plea, trial, or violation proceeding, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.
(2)(a) The court shall impose the costs of prosecution and investigation notwithstanding the defendant’s present ability to pay. The court shall require the defendant to pay the costs within a specified period or pursuant to a payment plan under s. 28.246(4).
(b) The end of such period or the last such installment must not be later than:
1. The end of the period of probation or community control, if probation or community control is ordered;
2. Five years after the end of the term of imprisonment imposed, if the court does not order probation or community control; or
3. Five years after the date of sentencing in any other case.
However, the obligation to pay any unpaid amounts does not expire if not paid in full within the period specified in this paragraph.
(c) If not otherwise provided by the court under this section, costs must be paid immediately.
(3) If a defendant is placed on probation or community control, payment of any costs under this section shall be a condition of such probation or community control. The court may revoke probation or community control if the defendant fails to pay these costs.
(4) Any dispute as to the proper amount or type of costs shall be resolved by the court by the preponderance of the evidence. The burden of demonstrating the amount of costs incurred is on the state attorney. The burden of demonstrating the financial resources of the defendant and the financial needs of the defendant is on the defendant. The burden of demonstrating such other matters as the court deems appropriate is upon the party designated by the court as justice requires.
(5) Any default in payment of costs may be collected by any means authorized by law for enforcement of a judgment.
(6) The clerk of the court shall collect and dispense cost payments in any case, regardless of whether the disposition of the case takes place before the judge in open court or in any other manner provided by law.
(7) Investigative costs that are recovered must be returned to the appropriate investigative agency that incurred the expense. Such costs include actual expenses incurred in conducting the investigation and prosecution of the criminal case; however, costs may also include the salaries of permanent employees. Any investigative costs recovered on behalf of a state agency must be remitted to the Department of Revenue for deposit in the agency operating trust fund, and a report of the payment must be sent to the agency, except that any investigative costs recovered on behalf of the Department of Law Enforcement must be deposited in the department’s Forfeiture and Investigative Support Trust Fund under s. 943.362.
(8) Costs for the state attorney must be set in all cases at no less than $50 per case when a misdemeanor or criminal traffic offense is charged and no less than $100 per case when a felony offense is charged, including a proceeding in which the underlying offense is a violation of probation or community control. The court may set a higher amount upon a showing of sufficient proof of higher costs incurred. Costs recovered on behalf of the state attorney under this section must be deposited into the State Attorneys Revenue Trust Fund to be used during the fiscal year in which the funds are collected, or in any subsequent fiscal year, for actual expenses incurred in investigating and prosecuting criminal cases, which may include the salaries of permanent employees, or for any other purpose authorized by the Legislature.
History.—s. 1, ch. 76, 1846; RS 2983; GS 4057; RGS 6161; CGL 8475; s. 47, ch. 87-243; s. 7, ch. 92-300; s. 4, ch. 97-60; s. 21, ch. 97-271; s. 25, ch. 2001-122; s. 1925, ch. 2003-261; s. 127, ch. 2003-402; s. 5, ch. 2006-176; s. 44, ch. 2008-111; s. 32, ch. 2010-162; s. 19, ch. 2012-100; s. 2, ch. 2013-112.
Note.—Former s. 939.01.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 234
cases (101 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Shepard v. State
Shepard v. State (2006)
“" § 938.27(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, section 938.”
Maestas v. State (2011)
“1 We hold that the trial court correctly imposed the 0 fee for costs of prosecution, as section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010), mandates that such costs shall be set at no less than 0 per case when a felony offense is charged, as is the case here.”
Hills v. State (2012)
“Under the 2007 version of section 938.27, the state conceded error in Del Valle v.”
Mills v. State (2015)
“52, Florida Statutes, as amended effective July 1, 2008, require notice and hearing before imposition of a minimum public defender’s lien, i.”
Davis v. State (2010)
“” The language of section 938.27, Florida Statutes, does not limit the cost of prosecution to a single trial.”
Negron v. State (2019)
“Section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2018), provides, in pertinent part, that in *1267 all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies if requested by such agencies.”
Ogden v. State (2013)
“25, Florida Statutes (2010), in the drug case; and sheriffs and prosecutor’s investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), in both cases.”
Gilchrist v. State (2006)
“The statute governing the assessment of fees in this case is section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2005), which states: (1) In all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law…”
State v. Tyrrell (2002)
“While the costs of prosecution and investigation of this case were significant and section 938.27, Florida Statutes (1999), required the trial court to tax those costs against Appellees, public policy dictates against this serving as the basis for a downward departure.”
Brenton McNeil v. State of Florida (2017)
“(2016) (“shall pay as a cost in the case”); § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In all criminal and violation-of-probation cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution.”
Clark v. State (2007)
“The third item challenged by Clark is 0 and 0 in prosecution and sheriff's investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2002). *913 Clark alleges two errors with respect to these costs: that there was no request for costs from the two relevant…”
Thomas v. State (2018)
“As to fees and costs, Appellant challenges three assessments in the written judgments and sentences for each of the six cases: a discretionary fine pursuant to section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes ; a surcharge pursuant to section 938.”
— 938.27(1) — 103 cases
Brenton McNeil v. State of Florida (2017)
“(2016) (“shall pay as a cost in the case”); § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2016) (“In all criminal and violation-of-probation cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution.”
Thomas v. State (2018)
“As to fees and costs, Appellant challenges three assessments in the written judgments and sentences for each of the six cases: a discretionary fine pursuant to section 775.083(1), Florida Statutes ; a surcharge pursuant to section 938.”
Mills v. State (2015)
“52, Florida Statutes, as amended effective July 1, 2008, require notice and hearing before imposition of a minimum public defender’s lien, i.”
Davis v. State (2010)
“” The language of section 938.27, Florida Statutes, does not limit the cost of prosecution to a single trial.”
Leyritz v. State (2012)
— 938.27(1997) — 1 case
— 938.27(2)(a) — 1 case
Shepard v. State (2006)
“" § 938.27(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, section 938.”
— 938.27(2)(c) — 1 case
Shepard v. State (2006)
“" § 938.27(2)(a), Fla. Stat. (2003). However, section 938.”
— 938.27(2)(c)(8) — 1 case
— 938.27(3) — 1 case
Martinez v. State (2012)
— 938.27(4) — 14 cases
Phillips v. State (2006)
Davis v. State (2010)
“” The language of section 938.27, Florida Statutes, does not limit the cost of prosecution to a single trial.”
Howard v. State (2006)
Hall v. State (2006)
Harrison v. State (2009)
— 938.27(5) — 6 cases
Demar v. State (2003)
Thibault v. State (2006)
Clark v. State (2007)
“The third item challenged by Clark is 0 and 0 in prosecution and sheriff's investigative costs imposed pursuant to section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2002). *913 Clark alleges two errors with respect to these costs: that there was no request for costs from the two relevant…”
Wilcox v. State (2012)
Martinez v. State (2012)
— 938.27(6) — 2 cases
Munoz v. State (2004)
Tucker v. State (2002)
— 938.27(7) — 5 cases
Negron v. State (2019)
“Section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2018), provides, in pertinent part, that in *1267 all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of the costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies if requested by such agencies.”
Speed v. State (2019)
Negron v. State (2019)
Speed v. State (2019)
— 938.27(8) — 94 cases
Maestas v. State (2011)
“1 We hold that the trial court correctly imposed the 0 fee for costs of prosecution, as section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2010), mandates that such costs shall be set at no less than 0 per case when a felony offense is charged, as is the case here.”
Hills v. State (2012)
“Under the 2007 version of section 938.27, the state conceded error in Del Valle v.”
Sanders v. State (2012)
Harrison v. State (2014)
— 938.27(9) — 1 case
Vargas v. State (2001)
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.