RODNEY MALONE vs STATE OF FLORIDA

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

RODNEY MALONE, Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-2831 LT Case No. 2022-100025-CFDL STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Opinion filed June 16, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Dawn D. Nichols, Judge.

O.H. Eaton, Jr., Assistant Regional Counsel of Office of Criminal Conflict & Civil Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.

Rodney Malone, Brooksville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders1 appeal, we affirm appellant’s judgment and sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing the sheriff’s $100.00 investigative cost under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), because the State did not request such a cost. See Chivese v. State, 331 So. 3d 264, 265 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574, 575–76 (Fla. 2020) (requiring specific request by State for award of investigative costs). We remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment removing the $100.00 investigative cost. In all other respects, we affirm.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

EISNAUGLE, MAKAR and KILBANE, JJ., concur.

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