Opinion
Case No. 5D19-1751 5D19-1753
01-24-2020
Aaron ROGERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Edward J. Weiss and Kathryn Rollison Radtke, Assistant Public Defenders, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.
Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marjorie Vincent-Tripp, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
In these consolidated Anders appeals, Aaron Rogers challenges the order revoking community control entered by the trial court in one of his cases below, together with the judgments and sentences imposed in both cases. Having carefully reviewed the record, we affirm, without further discussion, except for the following two issues.
First, in case number 2017-300370-CF, Rogers was alleged to have violated four conditions of his community control. He entered into a plea agreement with the State, admitting to the charged violations and approving an agreed-upon prison sentence. The trial court accepted Rogers's plea and imposed sentence consistent with the parties' agreement. However, the order revoking community control listed two conditions that were neither charged nor admitted to by Rogers as having been violated, and also did not include two of the conditions that Rogers did admit to having violated. Accordingly, we remand for the trial court to enter an amended order of revocation reflecting the correct conditions of community control that Rogers violated. See Reyes v. State , 44 So. 3d 216, 216 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (affirming revocation of probation and resultant sentence, but remanding for the trial court to correct the written order to accurately reflect the condition of probation violated).
Second, in case number 2017-304677-CF, the trial court ordered Rogers to pay $100 for costs of investigation under section 938.27, Florida Statutes (2017), to the Volusia County Sheriff's Office. This cost was not part of the written plea agreement between Rogers and the State. It was not requested by the prosecutor, nor was it orally pronounced nor, for that matter, mentioned by the court when it imposed the negotiated sentence.
"Trial courts may impose investigatory costs, but only when requested by the State or agency involved." See Desrosiers v. State , 44 Fla. L. Weekly D2951, 286 So.3d 297, 2019 WL 6720498 (Fla. 4th DCA Dec. 11, 2019) (citing Chambers v. State , 217 So. 3d 210, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) ). Here, because the record is clear that the State never requested reimbursement for investigative costs and Rogers never agreed to pay them, we remand with directions that the trial court enter an amended order in this case that does not include the $100 investigative costs.
AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.
ORFINGER, LAMBERT, and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).