JAIRIOUS ELAINA CULBERTSON VS STATE OF FLORIDA

S IXTH D ISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
S TATE OF F LORIDA
_____________________________
Case No. 6D2023-3024
Lower Tribunal No. 2023-MM-000417
_____________________________
J AIRIOUS ELAINA C ULBERTSON,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________
Appeal from the County Court for Osceola County.
Gabrielle N. Sanders-Morency, Judge.
December 5, 2025
PER CURIAM.
Jairious Culbertson appeals her judgment and sentence for trespass. On
appeal she raises two issues1, only one of which has merit: the trial court erred in
denying the motion to correct sentencing error.
1 In her first issue raised on appeal Culbertson asserts that the trial court erred
in denying her motion for mistrial because a State witness mentioned Facebook
pages referring to theft of a horse. Because any error made by the trial court in
including the witness testimony was harmless, we affirm the conviction without
further discussion. State v. DiGuilio, 491 So. 2d 1129, 1135 (Fla. 1986).

2
After 	the 	jury 	convicted 	Culbertson 	of 	trespass, 	the 	trial 	court 	orally
pronounced courts costs of “$271,” and later issued its written judgment and
sentence, which also reflected the same lump sum. Neither the trial court’s oral
pronouncement nor its sentencing order identified the individual bases for the costs
composing this amount. Instead, the written sentencing order grouped several
statutes together which authorize amounts that do not combine to support the full
amount of the lump sum awarded. Similarly, the trial court imposed costs pursuant
to section 939.185. That statute authorizes the adoption of ordinances by specific
government entities to impose specific additional costs, but neither the written
sentencing order nor the record reveal the ordinances which were adopted to
authorize the imposition of those costs against Culbertson.
While no statute or procedural rule requires a trial court to explain the basis
for an imposed cost, due process requires that it at least be evident from the
record. See King v. State, 375 So. 3d 389, 393 & n.3 and 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 2023).
Because the basis for each cost imposed is not evident in the record, we remand for
the trial court to properly impose the costs in the written sentence. In so doing, we
continue to reject any technical requirement that citation to authority must always
appear in every written cost order. Id.; Spiro v. State, 418 So. 3d 316 (Fla. 6th DCA
2025). While a citation in the written order might be the best practice, due process
is satisfied, and appellate review possible, when there is citation to authority in the

3
record or when the basis for each cost is otherwise evident in the record. Id. That is
not the case here. Accordingly, we must remand for the trial court to properly impose
the costs in the written sentence.
On remand, the trial court should also correct three other errors in the
sentencing order, all three of which were raised below. First, as both parties note,
sections 938.05 and 939.185 are listed twice in the written sentence. Culbertson
argues such duplication is improper because there is only one count, and the State
notes that it is “not clear why” the duplication appears. Section 938.05 authorizes a
court cost of $60 for a misdemeanor conviction. See § 938.05(1)(b), Fla. Stat. (2022).
Section 939.185 allows for the imposition by ordinance of $65 as well as for certain
“unit[s] of local government” to assess a second cost in the amount of $85 by
ordinance should a person be found guilty of any misdemeanor. See § 939.185(1)(a),
(b), Fla. Stat. (2022). As there was only one conviction for trespass in this case, it
was improper to duplicate sections 938.05 and 939.185 in the sentence. Whitley v.
State, 376 So. 3d 79, 82 (Fla. 1st DCA 2023) (citing McNeil v. State, 215 So. 3d 55
(Fla. 2017)).
Second, Culbertson correctly contends that section 938.04, Florida Statutes,
applies a surcharge of “5-percent” to any fine assessed and that such surcharge
should be $0 because there was no oral pronouncement of fines and the written
sentence states that a fine is not included in the lump-sum amount of $271. See §

4
938.04, Fla. Stat. (2022). It should therefore not be included in the written sentence
because it is not applicable.
Third, section 318.18, Florida Statutes, does not apply to Culbertson’s
conviction for trespass. Rather, the section is applicable to various traffic and other
infractions. See § 318.18, Fla. Stat. (2022) (entitled “Amount of penalties” and
applicable to motor vehicles, bicycle and pedestrian regulation infractions, and
traffic violations and infractions). It should therefore not be included in the written
sentence.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
NARDELLA, MIZE and GANNAM, JJ., concur.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and William L. Sharwell, Assistant Public Defender,
Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Roberts J. Bradford, Jr., Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING
AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED