BEAUTY v. STATE (2024)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Desha Ione BEAUTY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D2024-1166

Decided: November 22, 2024

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

Appellant raises a single issue in her appeal: can the trial court order a defendant to pay the minimum statutorily prescribed cost of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2024), if the State does not specifically request same? We answered this question in the affirmative in O'Malley v. State, 378 So. 3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), because the cited statute makes imposition of the statutorily specified minimum cost of prosecution mandatory. See Parks v. State, 371 So. 3d 392, 393–94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2023-1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2024). In O'Malley, we certified that our decision and the First District's opinion in Parks, directly conflicted with the Second District's opinion in D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), review granted, No. SC2023-1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2024). Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Per Curiam.

Edwards, C.J., and Wallis and Eisnaugle, JJ., concur.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network