Parks v. State — Cut prosecution costs from $200 to the orally imposed $100

Case
Perry Walter Parks v. State of Florida
Court
Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal
Judge
Klingensmith, J. (Rick Scott, 2013)
Date Decided
August 12, 2026
Docket No.
4D2025-1012
Topics
Criminal Sentencing; Prosecution Costs; Oral Pronouncement; Sentencing Correction
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

A jury found Perry Walter Parks guilty of possession of a firearm or ammunition by a convicted felon, possession with intent to sell or deliver MDPV, and possession of a substituted cathinone. He appealed his convictions and sentence.

At sentencing, the State initially recommended $200 in prosecution costs but later requested $100. The trial court orally imposed $100 in mandatory prosecution costs, while its written cost order imposed $200. Parks challenged the discrepancy through a motion to correct sentence under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), which was deemed denied after the trial court did not rule within 60 days.

The Court’s Holding

The Fourth District held that the written $200 assessment conflicted with the trial court’s oral pronouncement of $100. Because an oral sentencing pronouncement controls over a conflicting written order, the court accepted the State’s confession of error and reversed that portion of Parks’s sentence.

The court remanded with instructions to strike the $200 prosecution costs and impose the $100 mandatory minimum prosecution fees. It affirmed all other issues without comment, including Parks’s claim that he was entitled to a 12-person jury.

Key Takeaways

  • A trial court’s oral sentencing pronouncement controls when it conflicts with the written sentencing order.
  • A discrepancy between an oral pronouncement and written judgment may be corrected as a sentencing error.
  • The reversal was limited to prosecution costs; Parks’s convictions and the remainder of his sentence were affirmed.

Why It Matters

The decision reinforces that written cost orders must accurately reflect the sentence pronounced in court. Even a relatively small monetary discrepancy warrants correction when the written judgment imposes more than the trial court orally ordered.

The ruling also illustrates the limited relief available when an appellate court finds a discrete sentencing error: the court may direct correction of that assessment while leaving the convictions and all other sentencing issues undisturbed.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top