Background
Cynedice Rice was convicted of one felony and one misdemeanor in Polk County Circuit Court. Following her conviction, the trial court entered a Monetary Obligations Order that included “Additional SAO Costs of Prosecution Fees” in the amount of $250. Rice appealed the judgment and sentence, challenging the imposition of the prosecution costs.
The Court’s Holding
The Sixth District Court of Appeal agreed with Rice’s challenge, which the State conceded was meritorious. The court found that the trial court improperly imposed the $250 prosecution cost because the State failed to present any proof demonstrating that it incurred costs greater than $100. Under Florida Statute § 938.27(8), prosecution costs must be supported by evidence of actual costs incurred.
The court reversed the improper $250 cost imposition and remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter a corrected Monetary Obligations Order imposing the statutory default amount of $100 for state attorney costs of prosecution. The court noted that Rice’s presence was not required for this ministerial correction. The court affirmed the underlying judgment and sentence in all other respects.
Key Takeaways
- Prosecution costs imposed in criminal cases must be supported by proof that the State actually incurred costs exceeding the statutory default amount of $100.
- Trial courts cannot impose prosecution costs in excess of $100 without presenting evidence of greater costs incurred.
- Corrections to monetary obligations orders constitute ministerial matters that do not require the defendant’s presence on remand.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the statutory framework governing prosecution costs in criminal cases and establishes that trial courts must comply with the requirement to prove actual costs before departing from the statutory baseline. The opinion demonstrates appellate courts’ willingness to correct sentencing orders when they exceed statutory authority, even when the State concedes error. For practitioners, the ruling clarifies that prosecution cost impositions must be grounded in evidence rather than discretion.