DAVID J. BLAISDELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida

DAVID J. BLAISDELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA

District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided July 12, 2023·No. 22-1603·Published

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID BLAISDELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1603

[July 12, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CF002462A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction for violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes (2021). We also affirm the sentence with respect to the defendant’s claimed entitlement of additional county jail time credit against his consecutive prison terms. However, we accept the State’s concession of error with respect to the trial court’s assessment of $50 in investigative costs that were never requested by the State at sentencing. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 2020) (imposition of investigative costs in the absence of a request by the State for such costs at sentencing is reversible error).

We therefore reverse the investigative costs assessment and remand with directions that these costs be stricken from the judgment. See Richards, 288 So. 3d at 576 (“clear and unambiguous” language of statute authorizing investigative costs does not permit the State to “get the proverbial ‘second bite at the apple’ when it fails to satisfy [its] legal obligation the first time around” with respect to requesting such costs at sentencing); Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (the State is not permitted to seek investigative costs on remand when the

assessment of such costs is reversed based on the failure to request them prior to judgment).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

DAVID BLAISDELL,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-1603

[July 12, 2023]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; William L. Roby, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562021CF002462A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Gary Lee Caldwell, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan P. Picard, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the defendant’s conviction for violating section 836.10, Florida Statutes (2021). We also affirm the sentence with respect to the defendant’s claimed entitlement of additional county jail time credit against his consecutive prison terms. However, we accept the State’s concession of error with respect to the trial court’s assessment of $50 in investigative costs that were never requested by the State at sentencing. See Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 576-77 (Fla. 2020) (imposition of investigative costs in the absence of a request by the State for such costs at sentencing is reversible error).

We therefore reverse the investigative costs assessment and remand with directions that these costs be stricken from the judgment. See Richards, 288 So. 3d at 576 (“clear and unambiguous” language of statute authorizing investigative costs does not permit the State to “get the proverbial ‘second bite at the apple’ when it fails to satisfy [its] legal obligation the first time around” with respect to requesting such costs at sentencing); Rivera v. State, 336 So. 3d 738, 741 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (the State is not permitted to seek investigative costs on remand when the

assessment of such costs is reversed based on the failure to request them prior to judgment).

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.

WARNER, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

DAVID J. BLAISDELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA, (Fla. Ct. App. 2023).

Pincite

DAVID J. BLAISDELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA (DAVID J. BLAISDELL v. STATE OF FLORIDA) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.