Pedreira v. State

Full title: Bernard Pedreira, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: Oct 8, 2024

No. 5D2023-2700 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024)

Opinion

5D2023-2700

10-08-2024

Bernard Pedreira, Appellant, v. State of Florida, Appellee.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Zachary Wiseman, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Stephen R. Putnam Jr., 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 Marion County LT Case No. 2018-CF-003409-A . Peter M. Brigham, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Zachary Wiseman, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

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

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders ^[*] appeal, we affirm Appellant's conviction and sentence, but we conclude that the State has not made a showing justifying the imposition of a cost of prosecution in excess of $100, and the $150 cost of prosecution should therefore be stricken. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2017); Chivese v. State, 295 So.3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020). In addition, we conclude that the court's third assessment of a $201 domestic violence surcharge also must be stricken because the applicable count did not qualify for the assessment. See § 938.08, Fla. Stat. (2017). On remand, the trial court shall enter an amended cost judgment that omits the third domestic violence surcharge assessment, and the court shall either assess the mandatory minimum cost of $100 for the cost of prosecution under section 938.27, or hold an evidentiary hearing with proper notice that provides Appellant with an opportunity to be heard if the court intends to impose a cost in excess of the minimum $100 for the cost of prosecution. Appellant's "motion to vacate motion for extension of time to file initial brief," filed July 15, 2024 (mailbox rule), treated as a notice of withdrawal of Appellant's motion for extension of time, is ACCEPTED and his motion for extension of time is deemed withdrawn.

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

WALLIS, MACIVER, and PRATT, JJ, concur

[*] Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).