286 So.3d 297
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Appellant Jamaal Desrosiers filed a Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2) motion after sentencing, alleging a scoresheet error and asking discretionary costs be struck because the State had not requested them.
- At sentencing Desrosiers asked for a 4-year prison term to run concurrently with a prior sentence; the trial court instead sentenced him to 6 years concurrent.
- The scoresheet used by the trial court erroneously included a prior count scored at 0.2 points, slightly altering the calculated lowest permissible sentence.
- The trial court assessed $793.00 in costs ($418 court costs, $200 prosecution costs, $50 investigatory costs, $125 county drug abuse trust fund) without making factual findings; the State did not request investigatory costs.
- The trial court failed to timely rule on the 3.800(b)(2) motion; it was deemed denied and Desrosiers appealed.
- On appeal the State conceded the cost assessments were erroneous and agreed remand was appropriate for costs but argued the scoresheet error was harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether scoresheet error requires resentencing | Desrosiers: incorrect points on scoresheet entitle him to resentencing | State: error is harmless because Desrosiers requested a 4-year sentence exceeding the correct minimum | Harmless error — no resentencing required; scoresheet must be corrected on remand |
| Whether assessed court/prosecution/investigatory/drug-fund costs must be vacated or corrected | Desrosiers: discretionary and investigatory costs should be struck because State did not request them and court made no findings; ability-to-pay not considered for drug-fund fee | State: concedes costs were assessed in error and agrees remand is required to correct costs | Remand for cost corrections: impose mandatory $100 prosecution and $225 court fees; may reimpose discretionary costs only with factual findings; may reimpose drug-fund fee only after finding ability to pay; investigatory costs must be stricken (State did not request them) |
Key Cases Cited
- Zelaya v. State, 257 So. 3d 493 (4th DCA 2018) (errors on scoresheet are correctable but resentencing unnecessary if error is harmless)
- Somps v. State, 183 So. 3d 1090 (4th DCA 2015) (harmless-error standard: resentencing unnecessary if record shows same sentence would have been imposed)
- Sanders v. State, 35 So. 3d 864 (Fla. 2010) (harmless-error framework applied to scoresheet errors)
- Adlington v. State, 931 So. 2d 1040 (4th DCA 2006) (defendant’s requested sentence can demonstrate harmlessness of scoresheet error)
- Brown v. State, 658 So. 2d 1058 (2d DCA 1995) (discretionary costs must be supported by factual findings; otherwise reduce to mandatory fees)
- Hogle v. State, 250 So. 3d 178 (1st DCA 2018) (trial court may reimpose discretionary costs on remand if supported by findings)
- Gunn v. State, 818 So. 2d 681 (4th DCA) (court must consider defendant’s ability to pay before assessing drug-abuse trust fund fees)
- Chambers v. State, 217 So. 3d 210 (4th DCA 2017) (investigatory costs may be imposed only if requested by the State; otherwise must be stricken)
Affirmed in part and remanded with instructions.