ANDERSON v. STATE (2024)

In this Anders appeal,¹ we affirm the judgment and sentence imposed by the trial court following Appellant's admission to violating his probation. However, we remand for the correction of errors in the order of revocation of probation and in the final judgment assessing costs following the violation of probation (“VOP”) proceeding.

First, the order revoking probation included that Appellant also violated condition 9 of his probation. Appellant did not admit to, nor did the trial court orally announce, a condition 9 violation. We therefore remand for the entry of a corrected order that does not show the condition 9 violation. See Fletcher v. State, 286 So. 3d 923, 924 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019) (affirming conviction and sentence following the appellant's admission to violating probation but remanding for the entry of a corrected order of revocation of probation to reflect those conditions the appellant admitted to violating).

Second, the cost judgment entered following the violation of probation proceeding errantly includes a $352 assessment under section 938.085, Florida Statutes (2022). The trial court is directed to enter an amended VOP cost judgment that does not include this assessment.

Third, in addition to assessing certain costs incurred due to the VOP proceeding, the VOP cost judgment reassesses the $100 cost of prosecution, $100 cost of indigency defense, and $50 public defender's application fee previously imposed when Appellant was first sentenced. We direct that the trial court amend the VOP cost judgment to delete these duplicative costs. See Chivese v. State, 295 So. 3d 324, 326 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020).

Lastly, the VOP judgment for costs includes a $100 cost of investigation assessment that was not requested in the VOP proceeding. Pursuant to Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2020), this cost is not to be included in the amended cost judgment.

Affirmed; Remanded with directions to issue an amended cost judgment and a corrected order of revocation of probation consistent with this opinion.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

Per Curiam.

Lambert, Eisnaugle, and Maciver, JJ., concur.