Tapia v. State

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tapia v. State

2 So. 3d 1021, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20340, 2008 WL 5412319

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 31, 2008

Docket2D07-3760

StatusPublished

This text of 2 So. 3d 1021 (Tapia v. State) 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

Tapia v. State, 2 So. 3d 1021, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20340, 2008 WL 5412319 (Fla. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

WALLACE, Judge.

Javier Tapia challenges his judgments and sentences for aggravated battery with a firearm, armed carjacking with a firearm, armed kidnapping with a firearm, and aggravated assault with a firearm. Although Mr. Tapia raises five issues on appeal, the only issue warranting discussion is his claim that the trial court erred in imposing investigative costs. We affirm Mr. Tapia’s judgments and sentences without further comment, but we reverse the imposition of investigative costs and remand for further proceedings.

Mr. Tapia challenges the imposition of investigative costs authorized by section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2006). Mr. Ta-pia’s claim of sentencing error was preserved. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 574 (Fla.2008) (explaining that rule 3.800(b) “is not limited to correcting ... errors to which the defendant had no opportunity to object” and “may be used to correct and preserve for appeal any error in an order entered as a result of the sentencing process”); Jones v. State, 988 So.2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that defendant preserved the issue of the improper imposition of investigative costs by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion).

Section 938.27(1) provides that “convicted persons are liable for payment of the documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies.” (Emphasis added.) The record does not reflect any supporting documentation. Therefore, we strike this cost. See Jones, 988 So.2d at 16. On remand, the trial court may reimpose this cost if the statutory requirement is met. *1022 See Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

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

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

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

WALLACE, Judge.

Javier Tapia challenges his judgments and sentences for aggravated battery with a firearm, armed carjacking with a firearm, armed kidnapping with a firearm, and aggravated assault with a firearm. Although Mr. Tapia raises five issues on appeal, the only issue warranting discussion is his claim that the trial court erred in imposing investigative costs. We affirm Mr. Tapia’s judgments and sentences without further comment, but we reverse the imposition of investigative costs and remand for further proceedings.

Mr. Tapia challenges the imposition of investigative costs authorized by section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2006). Mr. Ta-pia’s claim of sentencing error was preserved. See Fla. R.Crim. P. 3.800(b)(2); Jackson v. State, 983 So.2d 562, 574 (Fla.2008) (explaining that rule 3.800(b) “is not limited to correcting ... errors to which the defendant had no opportunity to object” and “may be used to correct and preserve for appeal any error in an order entered as a result of the sentencing process”); Jones v. State, 988 So.2d 15, 16 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (noting that defendant preserved the issue of the improper imposition of investigative costs by filing a rule 3.800(b)(2) motion).

Section 938.27(1) provides that “convicted persons are liable for payment of the documented costs of prosecution, including investigative costs incurred by law enforcement agencies.” (Emphasis added.) The record does not reflect any supporting documentation. Therefore, we strike this cost. See Jones, 988 So.2d at 16. On remand, the trial court may reimpose this cost if the statutory requirement is met. *1022 See Caton v. State, 862 So.2d 901, 902 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

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

CASANUEVA and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 So. 3d 1021, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 20340, 2008 WL 5412319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tapia-v-state-fladistctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack