Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...however, as it relates to the imposition of three separate costs. Mr. Griffin committed his offense on November 2, 2002. When Mr. Griffin was sentenced in November 2004, the costs the court imposed included, among other items, a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), and costs of $2 and $150 pursuant to section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2004). [5] Section 939.185 was enacted effective July 1, 2004, see ch.2004-265, §§ 88, 109, Laws of Fla., and section 938.085 was enacted effective July 1, 2003, see ch.2003-114, §§ 3, 5, Laws of Fla....

...2d DCA 2006) (stating, "Costs may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense. See Hayden v. State, 753 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)"); see also Gonzalez v. State, 939 So.2d 224 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (involving sections 775.083(2) and 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004)); Waller v....

...State, 892 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005), the First District attempted a more detailed analysis of the application of ex post facto principles to costs imposed at sentencing. The First District specifically decided that imposing *615 the cost required by section 939.185 on a defendant who committed his crime before its effective date did not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws....

...We cannot equate these costs with civil filing fees that are assessed against either the losing plaintiff or the losing defendant and that are enforceable only as a judgment lien. [6] As such, we follow our precedent in Cutwright and remand for the circuit court to strike the $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185 and the $2 and $150 costs pursuant to section 938.085....

...ision in Ridgeway v. State, 892 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. We approve Ridgeway and quash Griffin, but only to the extent that it reversed the imposition of costs pursuant to the provisions of section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004). The limited issue we address is whether costs may be assessed under section 939.185 when that statute was enacted after the date Griffin is alleged to have committed a criminal act....

...In Ridgeway the First District Court of Appeal was faced with the identical issue. Because we agree with the opinion of the First District we set it out here in full and adopt it as our own: Appellant challenges the trial court's retroactive application of the cost provisions of section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), arguing it violates federal and State Constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We affirm. On July 1, 2004, pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant pled nolo contendere to an offense charged and committed in 1997. Coincidentally, on that same date, section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), became effective....

...State, 753 So.2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juvenile assessment center and teen court program could not be imposed where statutes authorizing imposition of such costs were enacted after date of defendant's offenses). Applying these principles to section 939.185, Florida Statutes, the statute meets the first prong of the two-part test, because it applies upon sentencing to convicted offenders whose offenses were committed prior to the statute's effective date....

...See § 939.18(1)(b). Because the trial court did not do so, we strike this cost. On remand, if the trial court conducts the necessary hearing, it may reimpose this cost. We note that section 939.18 was repealed in 2004. See ch.2004-265, Laws of Fla. Section 939.185 appears to have replaced this section....

...Effective July 1, 2004, the statute provides for an assessment not to exceed $65, which is imposed without the findings contained in section 939.18. Thus, this is another example where trial courts must apply the applicable law. The holding in this section of this opinion will not apply to costs imposed under section 939.185 for offenses committed on or after July 1, 2004....

...ction of the judgments concerning costs. Ogden filed a motion to correct sentencing errors under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that the court erred in imposing certain costs without orally pronouncing them: a $65 cost under section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2010), in both cases; a $100 cost under section 938.25, Florida Statutes (2010), in the drug case; and sheriffs and prosecutor’s investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2010), in both cases....

...State, 789 So.2d 1213, 1214 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001). Although a mandatory cost need not be orally pronounced, it is error to impose a discretionary cost without orally pronouncing it. Nix v. State, 84 So.3d 424, 426 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). The cost imposed under section 939.185(l)(a) and the local ordinance implementing it may stand, as it is not discretionary....

...ears.” This was sufficient to support the PRR sentence. In his second issue, the defendant argues the court erred in imposing costs without referencing the applicable county ordinance supporting the imposition of a $65 assessment, pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2016). In response to the defendant’s 3.800(b) motion, requesting a breakdown of the court costs, the trial court issued an order providing a detailed breakdown of the costs with citations to Florida Statutes for each assessment. One cost was $65 for “ADDITIONAL COSTS (BOCC) – PROGRAMS Mandatory with Ordinance,” pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a). We have previously held that the trial court need not cite statutory authority for the imposition of costs....

...See Johnson v. State, 944 So. 2d 474 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006), aff’d, 994 So. 2d 960 (Fla. 2008). We now hold there is likewise no need to cite the ordinance for which court costs are imposed. That being said, the trial court cited the applicable statute. Section 939.185(1)(a) provides that the “board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court” after a person is found guilty of a felony. We recognize that the First District has remanded a case for citation to the appropriate ordinance for costs under section 939.185....

...We are once again confronted with the issue of imposition of criminal statutory costs in a juvenile case. Specifically, we must decide whether the trial court properly imposed costs under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2005), in the amount of $20, and section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), in the amount of $65, in a juvenile proceeding that concluded with an order withholding adjudication of delinquency for the offense of domestic battery....

...This in turn would impair the ability of the juvenile system to focus on and serve its legislatively mandated rehabilitative function. Id. at 1278 (footnotes omitted). Following the directive of V.K.E., we must determine whether there is a clear legislative mandate to have sections 775.083(2) and 939.185 apply to juveniles, and if so, whether they apply in the absence of an adjudication of delinquency or entry of a plea....

...uage of the statute and its omissions that the Legislature did not intend to have costs imposed under that statute in the absence of an adjudication of delinquency. T.L.S. also contends that the trial court erred in imposing the $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, which provides in pertinent part: (1)(a) The board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional *293 court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, any felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state. § 939.185(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added). [2] A plain reading of the statute indicates that the $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a) is not intended to apply to juveniles....

...Johnson's prior DUI convictions. Affirmed and remanded with instructions. KLEIN and MAY, JJ., concur. NOTES [1] SN1 ("Safe Neighborhood 1"); CSTF ("Crime Stoppers Trust Fund"); AC ("Additional Costs"); CFF ("Capital Facilities Fund"). See Fla. Stat. § 939.185 (2006)....

...argued, among other things, that the trial court entered an illegal disposition of indefinite probation not to exceed his nineteenth birthday. He also argued that the trial court improperly imposed an unknown amount of costs in the written order that reads "$____ F.S. 939.185" and that the statute does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases....

...State, 935 So.2d 630, 631 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). [2] Therefore, because the trial court withheld adjudication of delinquency, it properly imposed the probationary term until R.F.'s nineteenth birthday. Accordingly, we affirm the probationary term. With respect to costs under section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2007), R.F....

...correctly points out that the trial court failed to give him notice of the amount owed. In addition, R.F. and the State cite to J.W.J. v. State, 994 So.2d 1223, 1227 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008), and T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 293 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007), for the proposition that section 939.185 does not apply to juvenile delinquency cases. We note that effective July 1, 2007, the legislature amended section 939.185 to apply specifically to an adjudication of delinquency. See Ch.2007-71, § 3, at 515, § 4, at 516, Laws of Fla. However, the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency. See § 939.185(1)(a). Thus, section 939.185 is not applicable to R.F.'s case. To the extent that the order imposes costs under section 939.185, we reverse and direct the trial court on remand to strike those costs....

...use they were discretionary costs and the trial court failed to orally pronounce them at sentencing. On this issue, we agree. The trial court assessed these fines as mandatory costs in accordance with section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2004), and section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), respectively....

...NOTES [1] The 2004 version of section 775.083 replaced the 2003 version effective July 1, 2004. Ch. 2003-402, § 117, at 3741-42, Laws of Fla. [2] The Florida legislature repealed section 939.18 effective July 1, 2004. Ch. 2004-265, § 101, at 1026, Laws of Fla. It replaced this section, effective the same day, with section 939.185....

...ent act; and $3.00 is authorized by section 938.19(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which expressly includes juveniles "adjudicated delinquent for a violation of a criminal law ... [or] a delinquent act." However, as to the $65.00 in costs authorized by section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), the Fifth District Court in T.L.S., 949 So.2d at 293, held that this statutory provision "is not intended to apply to juveniles." Therefore, this cost cannot be assessed, as the State concedes, and we direct the trial court on remand to reduce $168.00 by $65.00....

...Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, and Robert R. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. HAWKES, J. Appellant challenges the trial court's retroactive application of the cost provisions of section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), arguing it violates federal and State Constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We affirm. On July 1, 2004, pursuant to a negotiated plea, Appellant pled nolo contendere to an offense charged and committed in 1997. Coincidentally, on that same date, section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), became effective....

...State, 753 So.2d 720 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (holding cost assessment for juvenile assessment center and teen court program could not be imposed where statutes authorizing imposition of such costs were enacted after date of defendant's offenses). Applying these principles to section 939.185, Florida Statutes, the statute meets the first prong of the two-part test, because it applies upon sentencing to convicted offenders whose offenses were committed prior to the statute's effective date....

...Not made an issue is whether the Board of Leon County Commissioners ever adopted the additional court cost not to exceed $65, pursuant to the statute's terms, which, as noted in the majority's opinion, had become effective the same day that appellant entered his negotiated plea. Section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), is not self-executing, and it places discretion in county boards to authorize such cost....

...Because the court did not rule on the motion within sixty days, it is deemed denied. Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B); Howard v. State, 920 So.2d 764, 765 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Watts argues that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 county court cost pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2004)....

...ment in compliance with rule 3.830. See McGlamory v. State, 723 So.2d 388, 388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). We next address whether the trial court erred by imposing a $151 cost pursuant to section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2004), and a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004). Cutwright committed the sexual battery on June 5, 2003. Section 938.085 did not, however, become effective until July 1, 2003. See Ch. 2003-114, § 3, Laws of Fla. Section 939.185 did not become effective until July 1, 2004....

...The State has correctly conceded error on this issue. Costs may not be imposed where the authorizing statutes were enacted after the date of the offense. See Hayden v. State, 753 So.2d 720, 721 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We therefore strike the costs imposed pursuant to sections 938.085 and 939.185....

of costs in the written order that reads “$_F.S. 939.185” and that the statute does not apply to juvenile

...NOTES [1] The motion should have been filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), the juvenile version of rule 3.800(b). [2] Effective July 1, 2004, however, section 938.17 was amended and the provision for the imposition of juvenile assessment center costs was moved to section 939.185; section 939.185 does not contain the language of imposing the cost on those adjudicated delinquent....

...2d DCA 2006) (holding that the statute in effect at that time (i.e., section 775.083(2)(b), Florida Statutes (2003)), required the court to conduct an inquiry into the defendant's ability to pay the fine before imposing it). Jones also challenges the $65 cost imposed under section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004); however, we find no error in the imposition of that cost....

...We strike both costs and remand; on remand, the trial court may re-impose those costs in the appropriate amounts if it provides statutory authority for their assessment. See Vick v. State, 37 So.3d 951, 952 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010). Next, the trial court imposed a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes, but failed to cite the applicable ordinance....

...In this appeal Steven Navicky claims that the trial court erred when instructing the jury on his entrapment defense. We affirm on that issue without further discussion. Navicky also complains that the court improperly taxed him with a cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...That statute is applicable to crimes committed after July 1, 2004. Waller v. State, 911 So.2d 226, 229 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); see also Cutwright v. State, 934 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Navicky's crime was committed on November 23, 2003. Accordingly, we strike the $65 court cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185, and remand to the circuit court to correct the judgment....

...R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B), (b)(1)(B). The first two items challenged by Clark are surcharges of $150 and $2 imposed under section 938.085, Florida Statutes (creating a surcharge to fund rape crisis centers), [1] and a court cost of $65 imposed under section 939.185, Florida Statutes (creating an "additional court cost" assessable by the board of county commissioners). Section 938.085 became effective on July 1, 2003. See ch.2003-114, §§ 3, 5, Laws of Fla. Section 939.185 became effective on July 1, 2004....

...ty to pay. See Gonzalez v. State, 939 So.2d 224, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). As we did in Griffin v. State, 946 So.2d at 614-15, we certify conflict with Ridgeway v. State, 892 So.2d 538 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005) (concluding that imposing the cost required by section 939.185 on a defendant who committed his crime before its effective date did not violate the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws)....

...who has been adjudicated delinquent does not encompass a juvenile for whom adjudication has been withheld.”) (citations omitted); R.F. v. State, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (‘We note that effective July 1, 2007, the legislature amended section 939.185 to apply specifically to an adjudication of delinquency....

...The State properly concedes error, and we remand with directions that three of the challenged costs and the fine be stricken, subject to further proceedings as discussed below. We affirm the imposition of one of the costs. The trial court imposed a $48.75 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), which did not become effective until July 1, 2004, after Love committed the underlying criminal offense. See Ch. 04-265, §§ 88, 109 at 688, 691, Laws of Fla. However, in Griffin v. State, 980 So.2d 1035 (Fla.2008), the Florida Supreme Court upheld the retroactive application of section 939.185....

...Levering, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Carmen F. Corrente, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. We strike the assessment of the fine set forth in section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2005), as it has no application in juvenile proceedings....

...act; and $3.00 is authorized by section 938.19(2), Florida Statutes (2007), which expressly includes juveniles “adjudicated delinquent for a violation of a criminal law ... [or] a delinquent act.” However, as to the $65.00 in costs authorized by section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), the Fifth District Court in T.L.S., 949 So.2d at 293 , held that this statutory provision “is not intended to apply to juveniles.” Therefore, this cost cannot be assessed, as the State concedes, and we direct the trial court on remand to reduce $168.00 by $65.00....

...However, both challenged costs may be reimposed on remand if the court finds that Broadnax has the ability to pay. See Clark, 963 So.2d at 913. Broadnax also argues that a $50 cost and a $200 cost should be stricken because the offense occurred before the effective dates of the authorizing statutes, sections 939.185 and 938.05. We reject these claims. As to the $50 cost, the supreme court has held that retroactive application of section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), does not violate ex post facto prohibitions....

...ost of $370 that was improperly imposed. The form order included a mandatory cost for felony convictions which set out six statutes allegedly authorizing the imposition of the cost in the total amount of $370. This list of statutes included sections 939.185(1)(a) and 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2004). Denegall argued in his motion that the imposition of the cost based upon these statutes was error. We agree. With regard to section 939.185(1)(a), this court noted in Griffin v....

...The imposition of this mandatory $65 cost was improper. See Griffin, 946 So.2d at 614-15 (certifying conflict with Ridgeway v. State, 892 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). Therefore, we remand for the trial *507 court to strike $65 of the $370 cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a)....

...On remand the trial court shall impose a new sentence up to the maximum of five years' imprisonment for possession of amphetamine with intent to sell or deliver. Additionally, we remand for the trial court to strike from the monetary obligation order the imposition of the section 939.185(1)(a) cost of $65 and the section 775.083(2) cost of $50, both of which were included in the $370 felony mandatory cost....

...ition F of Mitchell's probation, which delegated to the probation officer the authority to order alcohol and drug testing in order for the probation officer to determine whether any substance abuse treatment was necessary. We also agree that because section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes, was not in effect at the time Mitchell committed his offenses, the amount of $65.00, which was imposed as an additional court facility fee, must be stricken....

...ing. We affirm in all respects except we reverse the imposition of certain fees and remand for further proceedings. First, E.C.T. argues, and the State properly concedes, that the trial court erred by imposing a $1 fee pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2018). That statute authorizes the imposition of additional court costs "not to exceed $65 . . . when a person . . . is . . . adjudicated delinquent." See id. Because section 939.185(1)(a) authorizes such costs only when a juvenile is adjudicated delinquent, it does not authorize the imposition of costs when, as in this case, adjudication is withheld....

Dear Judge Simmons and Chairman Carey: On behalf of your respective entities, you have asked the following questions: 1. May revenues generated by section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, be used to fund an alternative sanctions coordinator position created pursuant to sections 984.09 and 985.037 , Florida Statutes? 2. Is the county required to use revenues from section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, to fund a "local requirement" designated by the chief judge? Due to the interrelated nature of your questions, they will be answered together. Section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, provides: "(1)(a) The board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guil...

...d innovations to supplement state funding for elements of the state courts system identified in section 29.004 , Florida Statutes, 1 and innovations to supplement county funding for local requirements under section 29.008 (2)(a)2., Florida Statutes. Section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, does not define "innovations" for its purposes....

...Absent a statutory definition, the term must be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 2 "Innovation" is defined as "something that deviates from established doctrines or practice: something that differs from existing forms: change, novelty." 3 Thus, the Legislature has authorized counties to use the funds derived from section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, in new and different ways to supplement the elements for the court system provided by the state....

...funds for specialized programs, special prosecution needs, special defense needs, or the commitment of resources to the court, the Legislature has determined that a "local requirement" exists which will justify the expenditure of funds generated by section 939.185 , Florida Statutes....

...t of a court order. Clearly, the alternative sanctions coordinator program could be considered an activity with a financial or operational impact on the circuit or a county within the circuit. Accordingly, it is my opinion that revenues generated by section 939.185 , Florida Statutes, may be used to fund an alternative sanctions coordinator position created pursuant to sections 984.09 and 985.037 , Florida Statutes....

trial court erred in imposing a $65 fee under section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2022), without a citation

GRIFFIN, J. We affirm the appealed disposition order in all respects except for the imposition of a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2005)....

PER CURIAM. We strike the assessment of the fine set forth in section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2005), as it has no application in juvenile proceedings....

...Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allison Leigh Morris, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. GRIFFIN, J. We affirm the appealed disposition order in all respects except for the imposition of a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2005)....

...es, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee. Before LOGUE, SCALES and LUCK, JJ. SCALES, J.  H.S., a juvenile, appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to correct a disposition error. Because section 939.185(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2015) does not authorize a Florida county to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional $65 court cost where a juvenile court sustains the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudica...

...Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that H.S. committed the second offense but withheld adjudication of delinquency. The disposition order imposed $65 as an additional court cost in accordance with Miami-Dade County Ordinance 04-116, adopted pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a).1 1 The statute provides, in relevant part: The board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state. . ... § 939.185(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). The Miami-Dade County Ordinance implementing section 939.185(1)(a) is broader than the statute as to juvenile withholds of adjudication, imposing $65 as an additional court cost in 2  H.S....

...allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition. H.S.’s motion was deemed denied when the trial court failed to file an order ruling on the motion within thirty days. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(B). We agree with H.S. While section 939.185(1)(a) does authorize Florida counties to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional court cost of up to $65, that authorizing statute clearly and unambiguously schedules those adjudications and dispositions to which any such additional court cost applies....

...Specifically, a county may impose the additional surcharge “when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense . . . .” § 939.185(1)(a), Fla....

...State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that while juvenile cases “regardless of whether adjudication is withheld.” Code of Miami- Dade County, Fla. § 04-116. 3 the Florida Legislature amended section 939.185 in 2007 to apply it specifically to an adjudication of delinquency, “the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the [additional] cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency”)....

...amount authorized by the Florida Legislature, the trial court could not require the appellant to pay more than what the legislature has authorized.”). Accordingly, because we find the juvenile court’s imposition of a $65 additional court cost was not authorized under section 939.185(1)(a), we reverse and remand with directions that the costs be stricken.2 2 In so holding, we reject the State’s contention that our prior precedent is somehow “irreconcilable with the plain language of section 939.185(1)(a) and well-established law.” On the contrary, interpreting the statute as the State would have us read it—i.e., that the Florida Legislature intended the phrase “found guilty 4  Reversed and remanded. of” in section 939.185(1)(a) to apply to a juvenile who the juvenile court finds committed a delinquent act, but is not adjudicated delinquent—would render the phrase “adjudicated delinquent for” in the statute unnecessary and meaningless. See Johnson v....

SCALES, J. H.S., a juvenile, appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b)(2) motion to correct a disposition error. Because section 939.185(l)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2015) does not authorize a Florida county to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional $65 court cost where a juvenile court sustains the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudicatio...

...Following an adjudicatory hearing, the juvenile court found that H.S. committed the second offense but withheld adjudication of delinquency. The disposition order imposed $65 as an additional court cost in accordance with Miami-Dade-County Ordinance 04-116, adopted pursuant to section 939.185(l)(a)....

...ng the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition. H.S.’s motion was deemed denied when the trial' court failed to file an order ruling on the motion within thirty days. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(B). We agree with H.S. While section 939.185(l)(a) does authorize Florida counties to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional court cost of up to $65, that authorizing statute clearly and unambiguously schedules - those adjudications and dispositions to which any such additional court cost applies. Specifically, a county may' impose the additional surcharge “when a person pleads guilty'or nolo coh-tendere to, dr is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense ...§ 939.185(l)(a), Fla....

...This Court has previously found the statute does mot apply to juvenile withholds of adjudication. S.F. v. State, 56 So.3d 116, 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); see also R.F. v. State, 42 So.3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (noting that while the Florida Legislature amended section 939.185 in 2007 to apply it specifically to an adjudiea-tión of delinquency; “the amended statute does not provide for the imposition of the [additional] cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency”)....

...Florida Legislature, the trial court could not require- the -appellant to pay more than what the legislature has authorized.”). Accordingly, because we find the juvenile court’s imposition of a $65 additional court:cost was not authorized under section 939.185(l)(a), we reverse and remand with directions that the costs be stricken....

...ot to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or'is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any .felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state. § 939.185(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2015) (emphasis added). The Miami-Dade County Ordinance implementing section 939.185(l)(a) is broader than the statute as to juvenile withholds of adjudication, imposing $65 as an additional-court cost in juvenile cases "regardless of whether; adjudication is withheld.” Code of Miami-Dade County, Fla....

...rreconcilable with the plain language ofisection 939,185(l)(a) and well-established law,” On the contrary, interpreting the statute as the State would have us read it—i.e„ that the Florida Legislature intended the phrase "found guilty of” in section 939.185(l')(a) to apply to a juvenile ■ wh,o the juvenile court finds committed a delinquent act, but is not adjudicated delinquent—would render the phrase "adjudicated delinquent for” in the statute unnecessary and meaningless, See Johnson v....

...s; . pay $. the Public Defender attorney fee, under section 938.29, Florida Statutes; . pay $. other costs, under section(s).. Florida Statutes. . The child has been adjudicated delinquent and the child is required to pay $.an Additional cost, under section 939.185, Florida Statutes, if authorized by county ordinance....

...The motion should have been filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Juvenile Procedure 8.135(b), the juvenile version of rule 3.800(b). . Effective July 1, 2004, however, section 938.17 was amended and the provision for the imposition of juvenile assessment center costs was moved to section 939.185; section 939.185 does not contain the language of imposing the cost on those adjudicated delinquent....

...court failed to give him proper credit for time served. We reverse the trial court's order solely as to the imposition of certain costs and affirm in all other respects. [1] Marsh challenges the trial court's order imposing a $65 cost "pursuant to F.S. 939.185(1)." Section 939.185 became effective on July 1, 2004, ch.2004-265, § 88, at 1022-23, Laws of Fla., and is effective as to crimes committed after that date, Navicky v....

...Because the trial court imposed this discretionary cost without conducting the required inquiry, the cost must be stricken. See Gonzalez v. State, 939 So.2d 224, 225 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); Stewart v. State, 916 So.2d 53, 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005). Accordingly, we strike the $65 court cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185(1) and the $50 cost imposed pursuant to section 775.083(2)(b) and remand to the circuit court to correct the judgment....

...Statutes, which should be changed to “section 938.03, Florida Statutes.” The second appears in the last fee listed and assessed on the worksheet that cites a non-existent statute, section 938.185, Florida Statutes, which should be changed to “section 939.185, Florida Statutes.” WOLF, ROBERTS, and MAKAR, JJ., concur....

...Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. NORTHCUTT, J., and DANAHY, PAUL W., Senior Judge, concur. . As noted in Waller v. State, 911 So.2d 226 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (en banc), this statute was repealed in 2004 and was apparently replaced by section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004). The holding in this case does not apply to costs imposed pursuant to section 939.185 for offenses committed after July 1, 2004.

...Florida Statutes: . pav $.the Public Defender attorney fee, under section 938.29. Florida Statutes: . pav $.other costs, under sections').. Florida Statutes. The child has been adjudicated delinquent and the child is required to pav $.an additional cost, under section 939.185....

...June 6, 2005. The trial court shall enter a second amended uniform costs order that does not include the additional $50 crime prevention court cost, pursuant to section 775.083, Florida Statutes (2004), and the additional $65 court cost, pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004), that were not imposed in the original uniform costs order....

...State, 46 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010); J.S. v. State, 19 So.3d 380 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009); T.L.S. v. State, 949 So.2d 290, 292 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007). On the same ground, neither the $65 additional court cost nor the $85 temporary criminal surcharge authorized by Section 939.185(l)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes (2009), may be assessed....

...Though there is no time restriction placed on when a motion seeking transfer may be made, the lateness of Appellant’s motion, on the eve of trial, provides a reasonable basis for denying relief upon which the trial judge relied. Next, the trial court imposed a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes, without including the local ordinance authorizing the cost....

...While our reversal for a new hearing renders this issue moot, we nevertheless address his arguments concerning the two disputed costs for guidance to the trial court on remand.2 First, J.S. contends that the trial court erred by imposing a $1 fee pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2017)....

...Because the statute permits the imposition of costs only when a juvenile is "adjudicated delinquent," any such costs cannot be imposed when adjudication is withheld. See, e.g., R.F. v. State, 42 So. 3d 333, 335 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing imposition of a cost under section 939.185(1)(a) because that statute "does not provide for the imposition of the cost when the court withholds adjudication of delinquency")....

erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015), because the

...Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. BLACK, Judge. Mallory McCann challenges her fifteen-year sentence for armed robbery. We affirm the sentence without comment. However, we agree with McCann's contention that the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statues (2015), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance.1 See Swift v....

...Stat., as amended by s. 52, Ch. 03-402, Laws of Fla., effective July 1, 2004, deleting language authorizing service charges imposed by local or special law to provide for and maintain, among others, a law library. 6 Section 88, Ch. 04-265, Laws of Fla., creating 939.185 , Fla. Stat. (2004). Pursuant to s. 109, Ch. 04-265, Laws of Fla., the act, except as specifically provided therein, takes effect July 1, 2004. 7 Section 939.185 (1)(a)3., Fla....

improperly imposed a $65 court cost under section 939.185, Florida Statutes, and reverse so the trial

...contest to the two charges of driving with a suspended or revoked license. A remand for entry of a corrected judgment is therefore required. Remand is also required for the trial court to cite the applicable county ordinance for a $65 fine imposed pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes....

...3d at 176. The “board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to . . . any felony [or] misdemeanor . . . under the laws of this state.” § 939.185(1)(a), Fla. Stat. (2020). Additionally, Martin County has adopted an ordinance which provides that “[p]ursuant to F.S. § 939.185, an additional court cost of $65.00 shall be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to ....

...substantive claim but instead a procedural objection. Thus, Irvin’s challenge to the condition fails. Finally, Irvin asserts that an improper cost was included in the cost order. The charges, fees, and costs order imposes a cost of $65 pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2004)....

...e. See Griffin v. State, 946 So.2d 610, 614-15 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing Cubwright v. State, 934 So.2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006), and certifying conflict with Ridgeway v. State, 892 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)). As stated *578 in Griffin , section 939.185 was enacted effective July 1, 2004. Griffin, 946 So.2d at 614 (citing ch. 2004-265, §§ 88, 109, Laws of Fla.). Because Irvin committed her offense on May 16, 2003, prior to the effective date of the statute, the trial court lacked authority to impose the $65 cost authorized by section 939.185....

...We are once again confronted with the issue of imposition of criminal statutory costs in a juvenile case. Specifically, we must decide whether the trial court properly imposed costs under section 775.083(2), Florida Statutes (2005), in the amount of $20, and section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2005), in the amount of $65, in a juvenile proceeding that concluded with an order withholding adjudication of delinquency for the offense of domestic battery....

...This in turn would impair the ability of the juvenile system to focus on and serve its legislatively mandated rehabilitative function. Id. at 1278 (footnotes omitted). Following the directive of V.K.E., we must determine whether there is a clear legislative mandate to have sections 775.083(2) and 939.185 apply to juveniles, and if so, whether they apply in the absence of an adjudication of delinquency or entry of a plea....

...uage of the statute and its omissions that the Legislature did not intend to have costs imposed under that statute in the absence of an adjudication of delinquency. T.L.S. also contends that the trial court erred in imposing the $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, which provides in pertinent part: (l)(a) The board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an addition *293 al court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, any felony, misdemeanor, or criminal traffic offense under the laws of this state. § 939.185(l)(a), Fla. Stat. (2005) (emphasis added). 2 A plain reading of the statute indicates that the $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185(l)(a) is not intended to apply to juveniles....

PER CURIAM. Appellant contends the trial court erred by imposing a $65 cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2005)....

........(agency).....; ..... pay $.........., other costs, under section(s) .........., Florida Statutes. ..... The child has been adjudicated delinquent and the child is required tomust pay $.........., an additional cost, under section 939.185, Florida Statutes, if authorized by county ordinance. ........

...written order contains statutory citations, it does not contain citations to the municipal ordinances authorizing two costs.  Specifically, the trial court imposed a $2 cost, citing section 938.15, Florida Statutes (2021), and a $65 cost, citing section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2021). Section 938.15 provides that: In addition to the costs provided for in s....

...agency support personnel, provided such education degree programs and training courses are approved by the employing agency administrator, on a form provided by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission, for local funding. Section 939.185(1)(a) provides that: The board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found...

...first and second districts, have also remanded cost orders for citation to local authority. See, e.g., Dibelka v. State, 326 So. 3d 835, 837 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (remanding for the trial court to “provide the applicable county ordinance requiring the additional cost” imposed under section 939.185); Carter v. State, 173 So. 3d at 1051 (remanding for the trial court to cite the appropriate ordinance for the $65 cost imposed pursuant to section 939.185). Of course, this is not surprising given the rule pertaining to citations to statutory authority. In contrast, and consistent with its jurisprudence, the fourth district maintains a balanced approach, concluding that a citation to a municipal ordinance is not per se required....

...agency).....; ..... pay $ .........., other costs, under section(s) .......... .........., Florida Statutes. ..... The child has been adjudicated delinquent and the child is required to pay $.........., an Aadditional cost, under section 939.185, Florida Statutes, if authorized by county ordinance. - 37 - ........

...had committed the offense of petit theft as charged, withholding adjudication and placing K.M. on probation. The juvenile court also entered a memorandum of costs, ordering K.M. to pay court costs, fines, and fees in the amount of $218, which included a $65 assessment for “[additional] court costs” under section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016)....

...P. 8.135(b)(1)(B), (b)(2)(B)). 2  K.M. raises two issues on appeal. First, K.M. argues that the State’s sole proof of the value of the stolen merchandise is inadmissible hearsay. Second, K.M. argues that section 939.185(1)(a) authorizes the imposition of a $65 additional court cost only where a juvenile has been “adjudicated delinquent,” not where, as here, adjudication of delinquency is withheld. We find no error by the trial court in a...

...As such, the juvenile court did not err in finding K.M. delinquent for first-degree misdemeanor petit theft and we affirm on this issue. As to K.M.’s second issue on appeal, the juvenile court erred in imposing a $65 additional court cost under section 939.185(1)(a) where the juvenile court 3 sustained the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudication of delinquency has been withheld. This Court has recently stated that “section 939.185(1)(a) of the Florida Statutes (2015) does not authorize a Florida county to adopt an ordinance imposing an additional $65 court cost where a juvenile court sustains the allegations in the juvenile delinquency petition, but adjudication of delinquency is withheld.”2 H.S....

...a juvenile is found to be delinquent, but adjudication is withheld.”). Accordingly, we reverse as to this issue and remand with directions that the $65 in additional court cost be stricken from K.M.’s disposition. Affirmed in part and reversed in part. 2Section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2016) mirrors section 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2015). 4 

costs associated with section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2018). Section 939.185 states in relevant part

...ation of a disabled person under section 825.1025(3)(a), Florida Statutes (2017). We affirm the judgment and sentence without comment. However, Summers argues, and the State concedes, the trial court erred in imposing a $65 assessment pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2017), because the order assessing costs and fees fails to indicate the applicable county ordinance....

...Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Ann M. Phillips, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee. PLEUS, J. We affirm Holloway's judgment and sentence for manslaughter in all respects except one. We strike the $65 "Criminal Ordinance Program" fee imposed pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes, because that statute took effect after the instant offense was committed....

imposing court costs of $65.00 pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2006). In light of V.K.E

PER CURIAM. We affirm the disposition orders, including the Order of Commitment, in all respects except for that part imposing court costs of $65.00 pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes (2006)....

...stricken,” because “[t]here are no provisions in the Florida Statutes authorizing these costs.” Alternatively, if authorized, the trial court erred in imposing them when they were not orally pronounced at sentencing. The State responds that “[s]ection 939.185(1)(a), Florida Statutes, provides that ‘[t]he board of county commissioners may adopt by ordinance an additional court cost, not to exceed $65, to be imposed by the court....

...mandatory, they were not required to be orally pronounced. Once again, we agree with the State. Here, section 47.154 of the Martin County Code of Ordinances, chapter forty- seven, article eight, provides in pertinent part: “[p]ursuant to F.S. § 939.185, an additional court cost of $65.00 shall be imposed by the court when a person pleads guilty or nolo contendere to, or is found guilty of, or adjudicated delinquent for, any felony, misdemeanor, delinquent act, or criminal traffic offense under Florida Statutes.” Martin, Fla., Code § 47.154.A (2022) (emphasis added). Subsection two of section 939.185 mandates the imposition of the additional county ordinance cost....

...filed motion for rehearing. 2 Interestingly, the First District has held the sixty-five-dollar county ordinance cost is both discretionary and mandatory. Compare Ogden v. State, 117 So. 3d 479, 480 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) (“[t]he cost imposed under section 939.185(1)(a) and the local ordinance implementing it may stand, as it is not discretionary”) with Jackson v. State, 287 So. 3d 698 (Mem) (Fla. 1st DCA 2020) (“the trial court erred in imposing the $65 discretionary cost pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes....

PER CURIAM. The adjudication below is affirmed. The costs assessed, however, of $3 for teen courts pursuant to Section 939.90, Florida Statutes, $65 additional court costs and $85 temporary criminal surcharge pursuant to section 939.185(l)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes, and $50 for a crimes prevention program pursuant to section 775.083(2)(a), Florida Statutes,' were unauthorized and are vacated....

costs imposed pursuant to section 939.185, Florida Statutes? In sum: Section 939.185(1)(d), Florida Statutes

...Trust Fund; 3) Section 938.15, Criminal Justice Education for Local Government; 4) Section 938.05(l)(a), Additional Court Costs for Felonies; 5) Section 938.27(1), Judgment for Costs on Conviction; (includes prosecution/investigative costs); and 6) Section 939.185(l)(a), Florida Statutes (2007), Assessment of Additional Court Costs and Surcharges....