THEODORE PAUL PIECHOTA
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.
A trial court may not assess investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes, unless the prosecutor specifically requests them on behalf of the agency.
[1] Investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes, may not be assessed by a trial court unless the prosecutor specifically requests them on behalf of the agency.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“reverse the imposition of the investigative costs and remand with directions that the court enter an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the investigative costs, without the State being entitled to have those costs reimposed.”
Court's disposition regarding the investigative costs issue, citing Smith v. State and Richards v. State.
Theodore Piechota was convicted of a first-degree misdemeanor for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence. The trial court im…
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 Domestic Violence Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 5D2023-0448 LT Case No. 16-2021-MM-013859-AXXX _____________________________
THEODORE PAUL PIECHOTA, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee. _____________________________
On appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Kimberly A. Sadler, Judge.
Charlie Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Miranda L. Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
July 12, 2024
PER CURIAM.
Theodore Piechota appeals his first-degree misdemeanor conviction for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence, alleging that: 1) the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal,2) the trial court unlawfully assessed investigative and prosecution costs where the State did not specifically request them, and 3) the written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. We
The written final judgment directed Piechota to pay $50 in agency investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2022). This cost was not requested by the prosecutor on behalf of the agency as required by section 938.27(1). The $50 investigative costs were simply summarily included in the written judgment.
Accordingly, we “reverse the imposition of the investigative costs and remand with directions that the court enter an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the investigative costs, without the State being entitled to have those costs reimposed.” Smith v. State, 291 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2020)).
AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.
LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2020)
- Beauford v. State, 352 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)