When a person is convicted of a crime in Florida, the judgment often comes with more than jail time or probation. It can also include a list of fees and costs the defendant must pay. These financial obligations are easy to overlook, but they carry real consequences.
One category is the cost of prosecuting the case. Florida law sets rules for how much the state may charge and what it must show before charging more than a baseline amount. When those rules are not followed, an appeals court can step in to correct the paperwork.
This issue matters to anyone facing sentencing, because a fee added without the required proof is not automatically valid just because it appears in a court order. In Rice v. State, a recent decision from Florida’s Sixth District Court of Appeal, the court addressed exactly that kind of problem.
Key Takeaway
Before a Florida court can impose more than $100 in state attorney costs of prosecution, the state must present proof that it actually incurred higher costs. Without that proof, the amount is limited to $100.
What happened in this case?
Cynedice Rice was found guilty of one felony and one misdemeanor. After the verdict, the trial court entered a judgment, a sentence, and a separate order listing the money Rice was required to pay.
That order included a $250 charge described as additional state attorney costs of prosecution. Rice challenged that charge on appeal.
What was the legal issue?
The dispute focused on the cost-of-prosecution charge under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2023). The question was whether the state had done what the law requires to charge more than the baseline amount.
Rice argued the $250 figure was improper because the state never presented proof that it spent more than $100 prosecuting the case. Notably, the State agreed with her and conceded the point.
Why the dollar amount mattered
The law allows a set baseline for state attorney costs of prosecution. A higher amount is permitted only when the state offers proof of the greater costs it actually incurred.
What did the court decide?
The appeals court agreed with both Rice and the State. Because the record contained no proof of costs greater than $100, the $250 charge could not stand.
The court reversed the $250 amount and sent the case back so the trial court could enter a corrected order imposing $100 for state attorney costs of prosecution. It affirmed the rest of the judgment and sentence.
The court also explained that Rice did not need to be present for this correction, describing it as a ministerial fix rather than a new sentencing decision.
Why does this matter to people facing sentencing?
Financial obligations attached to a criminal case are governed by specific legal standards, not left entirely to discretion. When the law requires proof for a particular charge, that proof must appear in the record.
This decision illustrates that even a relatively small dollar figure can be reviewed on appeal, and that an unsupported cost can be reduced to the amount the law allows without further proof. It also shows that the state and the defense can sometimes agree that a charge was entered incorrectly.
What is the bottom line?
The court corrected a single line item in the financial order while leaving the conviction and sentence in place. The practical point is narrow but concrete: a cost of prosecution above the baseline requires supporting proof, and the baseline applies when that proof is missing.
Disclaimer: This post is for general information only, is not legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and does not predict or guarantee any result. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements. Before deciding, ask for free written information about the lawyer’s qualifications and experience.