CHAZ CUMMINGS vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: June 23, 2023
• Docket: 22-2265
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHAZ CUMMINGS,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2265 LT Case No. 2018-102348-CFDL

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 23, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

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.

PER CURIAM. 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.

JAY, HARRIS and MACIVER, JJ., concur.

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