D.A. v. State

11 So. 3d 423, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4475
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided May 13, 2009·No. No. 4D08-2029·Published·Cited by 20 cases

Opinion

DAMOORGIAN, J.

We hold that it was error for the trial court to impose costs of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007) on D.A., a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent.

This is an issue of statutory interpretation, which is subject to a de novo standard of review. Kasischke v. State, 991 So.2d 803, 807 (Fla.2008). Section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2007) provides for the imposition of costs of prosecution, as follows:

In all criminal cases, convicted persons are liable for payment of documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies, by fire departments for arson investigations, and by investigations of the Department of Financial Services or the Office of Financial Regulation of the Financial Services Commission, if requested by such agencies. These costs shall be included and entered in the judgment rendered against the convicted person.

A juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent has not been “convicted,” and is not a “criminal.” See § 985.35(6), Fla. Stat. (2007)1; see also A.M.P. v. State, 927 [424] So.2d 97, 100 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (stating that “an adjudication of delinquency does not qualify as a ‘conviction’ for purposes of section 775.083”) (Florida Statutes); State v. N.P., 913 So.2d 1, 2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (stating that juveniles are not deemed to be “convicted” by adjudications of delinquency). Thus, section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2007), which expressly applies to all “convicted persons” in “criminal cases”, does not apply to a juvenile who has been adjudicated delinquent. Cf. V.K.E. v. State, 934 So.2d 1276 (Fla.2006) (holding that a trial judge does not have the power to impose surcharges pursuant to sections 938.08 and 938.085, Florida Statutes on a juvenile in a juvenile delinquency proceeding and concluding that imposing such surcharges would conflict with the legislative intent in creating a separate juvenile justice system).

Accordingly, we reverse the order imposing costs of prosecution on D.A.

Reversed.

POLEN and STEVENSON, JJ., concur.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

D.A. v. State, 11 So. 3d 423, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4475 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

11 So. 3d 423 (D.A. v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Robert Everett Allen v. State of Florida
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2025
STATE OF FLORIDA v. JAMELL DEMONS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2022
BRADLEY A. BEVANS v. STATE OF FLORIDA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
Raul Eduardo Banegas-Membran v. State of Florida
182 So. 3d 865 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2016)
J.J. v. State
181 So. 3d 522 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
Wilgy Therlonge v. State of Florida
184 So. 3d 1120 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2015)
J.R.B. v. J.L.B.
85 So. 3d 1167 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2012)
Knowles v. State
65 So. 3d 597 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2011)
MAR v. State
67 So. 3d 232 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
FW v. State
29 So. 3d 428 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2010)
SDJ v. State
21 So. 3d 140 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
DA v. State
11 So. 3d 423 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)