VINTAVOUS LANARD DELAFIELD
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Vintavous Delafield appealed his judgment and sentence following an open plea of guilty to violating his probation. The court reversed the $100 investigative costs imposed against him, finding they were improperly assessed without a prosecutor's request as required by statute.
The court reversed the $100 investigative costs assessment, holding that such costs cannot be imposed without a request from the law enforcement agency as required by statute. The State may not seek to have these costs reimposed.
[1] Investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes, may only be imposed if requested by the law enforcement agency.
[2] A trial court may not summarily include investigative costs in a judgment and sentence without a specific request from the relevant agency.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“This cost was not requested by the prosecutor on behalf of this law enforcement agency, as required by section 938.27(1), nor, for that matter, was it even mentioned at the change of plea hearing.”
Establishes the primary basis for reversing the investigative costs—they were imposed without the statutory prerequisite of a prosecutor's request.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDelafield entered an open plea admitting to violating his probation. The trial court imposed a judgment and sentence that included $100 in investigati…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Violation Of Probation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Vintavous Lanard Delafield appeals the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court following an open plea in which Delafield admitted to violating his probation.
Delafield raises two grounds for relief, only one of which has merit.
We reverse the $100 investigative costs imposed by the trial court in favor of the St. Johns County Sheriff’s Office under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2018). 1 This cost was not requested by the prosecutor on behalf of this law enforcement agency, as required by section 938.27(1), nor, for that matter, was it even mentioned at the change of plea hearing. The investigative costs were simply summarily included in the written judgment. The State has commendably conceded error. Accordingly, we remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the investigative costs. Additionally, the State may not seek to have these costs reimposed. See Richards v. State, 45 Fla. L.
Weekly S8 (Fla. Jan. 16, 2020). We affirm, without further discussion, as to the other issue raised by Delafield in this appeal.
1 Delafield timely challenged the assessment of these investigative costs by filing a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error. In denying this motion, the trial court explained that to avoid “clutter[ing] the dockets,” it understood that the State Attorney’s Office and the Public Defender’s Office in the Seventh Judicial Circuit had reached an “agreement” that the sum of $100 for investigative costs is to be assessed in “all cases,” apparently regardless of whether this cost had actually been incurred or requested by the law enforcement agency.
To the extent that this observation is accurate, it is in direct contradiction to the plain language of section 938.27(1) that authorizes the imposition of such investigative costs “if requested by the agencies” so listed in the statute. We remind that it is the sole prerogative of the Legislature, and not the Seventh Judicial Circuit State Attorney’s Office and Public Defender’s Office, with the blessing of the trial judges, to determine the manner in which investigative costs are to be imposed. Presently, under this statute, to assess investigative costs, the costs must first be requested by the agency and, absent stipulation from the defendant, the amount must then be proven at a hearing. If the Legislature desires to amend the statute to provide that a minimum $100 cost of investigation must be summarily assessed against a defendant in each case, it is certainly capable of doing so. See §§ 938.27(8) (requiring the assessment of no less than $100 attorney’s fees per case to the State Attorney’s Office when a felony offense is charged), 938.29(1) (requiring assessment of no less than $100 attorney’s fees per case against indigent defendants when a felony offense is charged). Unless and until it does, trial judges are not authorized to summarily impose a blanket $100 investigative costs assessment per case.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED with directions.
LAMBERT, GROSSHANS, and TRAVER, JJ., concur.