Skinkle v. State

Full title: JAVAUGHN SKINKLE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Court: Florida Court of Appeals, Fifth District

Date published: May 20, 2022

No. 5D21-2504 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May. 20, 2022)

Opinion

5D21-2504

05-20-2022

JAVAUGHN SKINKLE, Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Volusia County LT Case No. 2021-CF-101477, James R. Clayton, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Joseph Chloupek, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kristen L. Davenport, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this Anders ¹ appeal, we affirm Javaughn Skinkle's judgment and sentence with one exception. The trial court erred in assessing investigative costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2021), in the absence of a request from the State. See Richards v. State, 288 So.3d 574, 577 (Fla. 2020) ("[T]he State must request investigative costs to make a defendant liable for those costs . . . ." (citation omitted)). We remand for the trial court to enter an amended judgment without including these investigative costs. In all other respects, we affirm. See State v. Dortch, 317 So.3d 1074, 1084 (Fla. 2021) ("[T]here is no fundamental-error exception to the preservation requirement of rule 9.140(b)(2)(A)(ii)(c).").

1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

AFFIRMED; REMANDED with directions.

LAMBERT, CJ, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ, concur