One Case, One Cost of Prosecution — Florida Court Corrects a Common Sentencing Error
A recent Second District Court of Appeal decision in Gilbreth v. State reinforces a straightforward rule that courts sometimes get wrong: no matter how many charges are in a single case, a court can only impose one cost-of-prosecution assessment per case—not one per charge.
What Happened
The defendant entered pleas to two misdemeanor charges in the same case—resisting an officer without violence and criminal mischief. He was sentenced to concurrent terms of probation. At sentencing, the court orally imposed standard court costs and a cost of prosecution. But when the written judgment was entered, it listed two separate $50 cost-of-prosecution assessments—one for each charge—totaling $100.
The defendant filed a timely motion to correct the sentencing error, pointing out that the cost of prosecution had been doubled. The trial court never entered a written order on the motion, which under the rules meant the motion was automatically deemed denied. The defendant then appealed.
What the Court Decided
The Second DCA agreed with the defendant. The court held that imposing more than one cost-of-prosecution assessment in a single case—regardless of how many charges are involved—is legal error. It reversed the duplicate cost and sent the case back with instructions to strike the second $50 assessment, reducing the total from $100 to $50.
Why This Matters
Sentencing errors involving costs and fees are more common than most people realize. Courts handle high volumes of cases and the written judgment does not always match what was actually said at the sentencing hearing—or what the law requires. This case is a reminder that defendants have the right to review their written sentencing documents carefully and challenge errors through a timely motion.
Even a $50 difference matters, both as a matter of principle and as a practical financial burden for someone already dealing with probation. More importantly, the rule cuts both ways: if a court can improperly double a cost-of-prosecution assessment, it can also improperly add other unauthorized fees. Reviewing every line of a sentencing order is worth the effort.
Read the full opinion: Gilbreth v. State, Second District Court of Appeal, 2026 — search the 2DCA written opinions archive
How Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers Can Help
Errors in sentencing documents—including duplicate fees, unauthorized costs, and discrepancies between what a judge said in court and what the written judgment reflects—are correctable, but you have to act quickly. At Sanchez Vaughn Trial Lawyers, we routinely review sentencing orders for our Tampa Bay clients to catch exactly these kinds of mistakes and file motions to correct them. If you believe your sentence contains an error, call us to take a look.