CUMMINGS v. STATE (2023)

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Chaz CUMMINGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D22-2265

Decided: June 23, 2023

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Robert J. Pearce, III, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Bonnie Jean Parrish, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

In this Anders ¹ appeal, we affirm Chaz Cummings’ judgment and sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020) (“[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant liable for those costs ․” (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In all other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So. 3d 1074, 1084 (Fla. 2021) (“[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation requirement of [Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure] 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

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

PER CURIAM.

JAY, HARRIS and MACIVER, 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Out of date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