GETZLAFF v. STATE (2023)

Jon Adrian Getzlaff appeals his judgment and sentence for three counts of misdemeanor battery and one count of misdemeanor criminal mischief. Getzlaff presents to this Court four issues: (i) whether the trial court erred by denying Getzlaff's motion for judgment of acquittal; (ii) whether the trial court erred by imposing a $50 cost for prosecution; (iii) whether the trial court erred by imposing a $2 cost for criminal justice education; and (iv) whether the trial court erred by failing to credit Getzlaff for time served.

As for the first issue, we affirm the trial court's decision to deny Getzlaff's motion for judgment of acquittal without further comment. Second, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the $50 cost of prosecution. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“[T]he State was not required to request the [ ] mandatory state attorney cost before the court assessed it.”). Third, we affirm the trial court's imposition of the $2 cost for criminal justice education despite the trial court citing to the wrong local ordinance in their written order. See Malden v. State, 359 So. 3d 442, 443 n.1 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (“[Appellant] does not argue that the ordinance and its $2 fine did not apply to his case, only that the court failed to write the ordinance number in the judgment. Because there can be no prejudice where the ordinance exists, applies to the defendant, and lawfully imposes the fine, we affirm.”). Finally, because Getzlaff is no longer incarcerated, he has no use for credit that would reduce his sentence. Toomer v. State, 895 So. 2d 1256, 1257 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005). Thus, we dismiss the fourth issue on appeal as moot. Id. at 1256.

Affirmed in part and Dismissed in part.

Per Curiam.

Roberts, Winokur, and Nordby, JJ., concur.