Theodore Paul Piechota v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Theodore Paul Piechota v. State of Florida

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 12, 2024

Docket2023-0448

StatusPublished

This text of Theodore Paul Piechota v. State of Florida (Theodore Paul Piechota 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

Theodore Paul Piechota v. State of Florida, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0448 LT Case No. 16-2021-MM-013859-AXXX _____________________________

THEODORE PAUL PIECHOTA, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Kimberly A. Sadler, Judge.

Charlie Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Miranda L. Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

July 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Piechota appeals his first-degree misdemeanor conviction for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence, alleging that: 1) the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, 2) the trial court unlawfully assessed investigative and prosecution costs where the State did not specifically request them, and 3) the written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. We affirm on all issues without further discussion with the following exception.

The written final judgment directed Piechota to pay $50 in agency investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2022). This cost was not requested by the prosecutor on behalf of the agency as required by section 938.27(1). The $50 investigative costs were simply summarily included in the written judgment.

Accordingly, we “reverse the imposition of the investigative costs and remand with directions that the court enter an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the investigative costs, without the State being entitled to have those costs reimposed.” Smith v. State, 291 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2020)).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

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

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________

Case No. 5D2023-0448 LT Case No. 16-2021-MM-013859-AXXX _____________________________

THEODORE PAUL PIECHOTA, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee. _____________________________

On appeal from the County Court for Duval County. Kimberly A. Sadler, Judge.

Charlie Cofer, Public Defender, and Elizabeth Hogan Webb, Assistant Public Defender, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Miranda L. Butson, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

July 12, 2024

PER CURIAM.

Theodore Piechota appeals his first-degree misdemeanor conviction for violating an injunction for protection against domestic violence, alleging that: 1) the trial court erred in denying his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, 2) the trial court unlawfully assessed investigative and prosecution costs where the State did not specifically request them, and 3) the written judgment and sentence should be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement. We affirm on all issues without further discussion with the following exception.

The written final judgment directed Piechota to pay $50 in agency investigative costs under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2022). This cost was not requested by the prosecutor on behalf of the agency as required by section 938.27(1). The $50 investigative costs were simply summarily included in the written judgment.

Accordingly, we “reverse the imposition of the investigative costs and remand with directions that the court enter an amended judgment and sentence that strikes or deletes the investigative costs, without the State being entitled to have those costs reimposed.” Smith v. State, 291 So. 3d 637 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020) (citing Richards v. State, 288 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 2020)).

AFFIRMED in part and REVERSED in part.

LAMBERT, EISNAUGLE, and BOATWRIGHT, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331. _____________________________

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Theodore Paul Piechota v. State of Florida, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/theodore-paul-piechota-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2024.