DAVID J. BLAISDELL
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.
Investigative costs cannot be imposed if the State fails to request them at sentencing.
[1] Investigative costs may not be imposed in the absence of a timely request by the State for such costs at sentencing, and the State is precluded from seeking investigative…
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“the State is not permitted to seek investigative costs on remand when the assessment of such costs is reversed based on the failure to request them prior to judgment.”
Court's explanation that the State cannot obtain investigative costs on remand after reversal for failure to request them initially.
David Blaisdell was convicted of violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes. The trial court imposed a $50 investigative costs assessment that the Sta…
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.
PER CURIAM.
We affirm the defendant’s conviction for violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes (2021). We also affirm the sentence with respect to the defendant’s claimed entitlement of additional county jail time credit against his consecutive prison terms. However, we accept the State’s concession of error with respect to the trial court’s assessment of $50 in investigative costs that were never requested by the State at sentencing. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 2020) (imposition of investigative costs in the absence of a request by the State for such costs at sentencing is reversible error).
We therefore reverse the investigative costs assessment and remand with directions that these costs be stricken from the judgment. See Richards, 288 So. 3d at 576 (“clear and unambiguous” language of statute authorizing investigative costs does not permit the State to “get the proverbial ‘second bite at the apple’ when it fails to satisfy [its] legal obligation the first time around” with respect to requesting such costs at sentencing); Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (the State is not permitted to seek investigative costs on remand when the assessment of such costs is reversed based on the failure to request them prior to judgment).
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.
* * *
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
2
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Blaisdell v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
-
Frank v. State, 391 So. 3d 918 (Fla. 4th DCA 2024)…actual per diem cost of the supervision. § 948.09(1)(a)1., Fla. Stat. (2022) (emphasis added). Because the monthly cost of supervision is statutorily mandated, it is a general condition not requiring oral pronouncement. See Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738, 740 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (finding the requirement to pay supervisory costs was a general condition of probation not requiring oral pronouncement); Hart, 668 So. 2d at 592. The pertinent question raised in this appeal centers on the issue of th…
-
Chitrekha Ramsaran v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)…lorida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2). As the trial court failed to rule on the motion within sixty days, the motion was deemed denied. See Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2)(B). Appellant raises the same claims on appeal. In Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022), we considered the imposition of identical costs. We adopt the rulings in Rivera here: We strike the $25 investigative costs because the state did not request such costs prior to the judgment. § 938.27(1), Fla. Stat. (2020).…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
- Blaisdell v. State (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)