Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2026

Docket4D2025-2453

StatusPublished

This text of Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida (Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT

OSCAR MOLINET-GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D2025-2453

[May 13, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Jeffrey Walton Hendriks, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF003307AXXXXX.

Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error, wherein he asserts the trial court’s written final judgment assessing investigation and prosecution costs did not conform to the oral pronouncement. The trial court orally imposed only $100 in costs of prosecution. However, the order provided $50 in investigative costs and $200 in costs of prosecution. The State filed a confession of error. We have reviewed, and we accept, the State’s commendable confession of error.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence, but remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the $50 cost of investigation and correct the cost of prosecution to reflect $100. See Croissy v. State, 404 So. 3d 419, 420–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“The final judgment however did not mirror [the oral] pronouncement. Instead, the written sentencing order doubled the prosecution costs and contained a new $50 investigation fee. For this reason, we reverse the final judgment and remand the case for the trial court to correct the scrivener’s errors to reflect the sentence orally pronounced.”).

Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

KUNTZ, C.J., GERBER and LOTT, JJ., concur.

* * *

No motion for rehearing will be accepted. The mandate shall issue immediately.

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

OSCAR MOLINET-GONZALEZ, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

No. 4D2025-2453

[May 13, 2026]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St. Lucie County; Jeffrey Walton Hendriks, Judge; L.T. Case No. 562018CF003307AXXXXX.

Daniel Eisinger, Public Defender, and Ian Seldin, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Paul Patti, III, Senior Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

ON CONFESSION OF ERROR

PER CURIAM.

Appellant Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez appeals the denial of his Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion to correct sentencing error, wherein he asserts the trial court’s written final judgment assessing investigation and prosecution costs did not conform to the oral pronouncement. The trial court orally imposed only $100 in costs of prosecution. However, the order provided $50 in investigative costs and $200 in costs of prosecution. The State filed a confession of error. We have reviewed, and we accept, the State’s commendable confession of error.

Accordingly, we affirm Appellant’s conviction and sentence, but remand with instructions for the trial court to strike the $50 cost of investigation and correct the cost of prosecution to reflect $100. See Croissy v. State, 404 So. 3d 419, 420–21 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025) (“The final judgment however did not mirror [the oral] pronouncement. Instead, the written sentencing order doubled the prosecution costs and contained a new $50 investigation fee. For this reason, we reverse the final judgment and remand the case for the trial court to correct the scrivener’s errors to reflect the sentence orally pronounced.”).

Affirmed in part, and reversed and remanded in part.

KUNTZ, C.J., GERBER and LOTT, JJ., concur.

* * *

No motion for rehearing will be accepted. The mandate shall issue immediately.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Oscar Molinet-Gonzalez v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-molinet-gonzalez-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2026.