JAVAUGHN SKINKLE vs STATE OF FLORIDA

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: May 20, 2022
• Docket: 21-2504
• 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

JAVAUGHN SKINKLE,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D21-2504 LT Case No. 2021-CF-101477

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. ________________________________/

Opinion filed May 20, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, James R. Clayton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm Javaughn Skinkle’s 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 rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).”).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, C.J., EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.

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