Beauty v. State

Full title: Desha Ione Beauty, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Nov 22, 2024

No. 5D2024-1166 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Nov. 22, 2024)

Opinion

5D2024-1166

11-22-2024

Desha Ione Beauty, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

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

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County LT Case No. 2022-CF-002511-A, William Scott Orth, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Alyssa M. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises a single issue in her appeal: can the trial court order a defendant to pay the minimum statutorily prescribed cost of prosecution pursuant to section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2024), if the State does not specifically request same? We answered this question in the affirmative in O'Malley v. State, 378 So.3d 672 (Fla. 5th DCA 2024), because the cited statute makes imposition of the statutorily specified minimum cost of prosecution mandatory. See Parks v. State, 371 So.3d 392, 393-94 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023), review granted, No. SC2023-1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2024). In O'Malley, we certified that our decision and the First District's opinion in Parks, directly conflicted with the Second District's opinion in D.L.J. v. State, 331 So.3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), review granted, No. SC2023-1355, 2024 WL 370043 (Fla. Jan. 31, 2024) Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

EDWARDS, C.J., and WALLIS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.