Miosotis Irizarry v. State of Florida

Opinion

SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D2024-1495

Lower Tribunal No. 2023-CF-007835

_____________________________

MIOSOTIS IRIZARRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County.

Wayne M. Durden, Judge.

January 9, 2026

GANNAM, J.

Miosotis Irizarry appeals her judgment and sentence asserting two grounds for reversal, one of which we address. The trial court’s Monetary Obligations Order imposed “Additional SAO Costs of Prosecution Fees” of $150 under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2024), which exceeds the $100 state attorney cost minimum for felony offenses, without the State’s “showing of sufficient proof of

2

higher costs incurred.” The State concedes the error, and we agree. See Golphin v. State, 413 So. 3d 828, 828-29 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024).

We reverse as to the $150 cost imposition and remand for entry of a corrected monetary obligations order imposing $100 for state attorney costs. Irizarry’s presence is not required for this ministerial correction. See Golphin, 413 So. 3d at 829. We affirm the judgment and sentence in all other respects.

AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED with instructions. SMITH and BROWNLEE, JJ., concur.

Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Natalia Reyna-Pimiento, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

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