TIMOTHY PORTER
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.
Timothy Porter appeals his DUI conviction, challenging the trial court's imposition of a $50 investigative cost that was not requested by the State. The appellate court agrees this was error under Florida law and reverses that portion of the sentencing while affirming the conviction and other sentencing components.
The trial court erred in imposing the $50 investigative cost without a specific request from the State. The conviction and other aspects of the sentence are affirmed, but the case is reversed and remanded for the trial court to enter an amended cost order removing the $50 investigative cost.
[1] Investigative costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes, cannot be imposed by a trial court absent a specific request from the State for such costs.
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“Timothy Porter ("Appellant") timely appeals his conviction for one count of driving under the influence ("DUI"), a misdemeanor offense.”
Establishes the nature of the conviction being appealed
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTimothy Porter was convicted of driving under the influence, a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to twelve months' probation and ordered to pay co…
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 Investigative Costs cases and more on FLexlaw
September 20, 2024 PER CURIAM.
Timothy Porter (“Appellant”) timely appeals his conviction for one count of driving under the influence (“DUI”), a misdemeanor offense. He was sentenced to twelve months’ probation and ordered to pay certain court costs. Although he raises four issues on appeal, only one merits discussion.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred when it imposed $50.00 for investigative costs pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2023), because the State did not specifically request that cost to be imposed. We agree that it was error to do so. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 576 (Fla. 2020); O’Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672, 674 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024). We affirm as to all other issues, but reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an amended cost order that removes the $50.00 investigative cost.
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; REMANDED with instructions. EDWARDS, C.J., and EISNAUGLE and MACIVER, 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
Cited By
-
Morales v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See O’Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); Parks v, State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (holding that a cost imposed under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2020), is mandatory and recognizing conflict with D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227, 228 (Fla. 2d DCA…
-
Tracorvis Levon Strickland v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See O’Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (holding that a cost imposed under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, is mandatory and recognizing conflict with D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)) re…
-
Scheider v. State (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…lle Paige Lawshe, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Daren L. Shippy, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee. October 8, 2024 PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See O’Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024); Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393−94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (holding that a cost imposed under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, is mandatory and recognizing conflict with D.L.J. v. 2 State, 331 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2…
Previewing 3 of 9 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)
- O'Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)