Villecco v. State of Florida

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
JOHN WILLIAM VILLECCO, JR.,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-1545
February 11, 2026
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee County; Teresa Kaklis Dees,
Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Carly J. Robbins, Special Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and J. Wade Stidham,
Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
MORRIS, Judge.
John Villecco, Jr., appeals his judgment and sentence for grand
theft of a motor vehicle. We affirm the judgment and sentence, but we
reverse the final judgment for fines and costs and remand for the trial
court to strike $200 in investigative costs.
At the sentencing hearing, the trial court ordered "court costs, cost
of prosecution, and cost of investigation payable to the Manatee County

2
Sheriff's Office." The final judgment for fines and costs includes $100 for
"State Attorney Costs of Prosecution pursuant to F.S. 938.27(8)" and
$200 for "Prosecution/Investigative Costs per 938.27, Fla. Stat.," for the
"Manatee County Sheriff's Office."
Villecco filed a motion to correct sentencing error pursuant to
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b), arguing that the $200
investigative costs were not requested by the State, were not announced
by the court, and were not supported by an affidavit or evidence. He
claimed that the State failed to meet its burden of supporting the amount
of costs incurred in excess of the mandatory statutory amount of $100
for prosecution costs. Villecco also challenged a public defender fee
imposed by the trial court.
The trial court granted Villecco's rule 3.800(b) motion in part—
striking the public defender fee—but denied the balance of the motion
without further explanation.
The $100 State Attorney costs were mandatory and thus properly
imposed. See § 938.27(8), Fla. Stat. (2022) ("Costs for the state attorney
must be set in all cases at . . . no less than $100 per case when a felony
offense is charged . . . ."); Parks v. State, 411 So. 3d 414, 419 (Fla. 2025).
However, the $200 investigative costs for the Manatee County Sheriff's
Office under section 938.27(1) were discretionary and were not orally
imposed by the trial court or supported by evidence from the State.1 See
Parks, 411 So. 3d at 419 ("It is axiomatic that costs not mandated in a
1 The State orally requested "cost of investigation to MSO" without
specifying an amount or referring to any documentation. The trial court
orally awarded "cost of investigation" but did not specify an amount. The
$200 amount first appeared in a handwritten notation on an amended
"cost worksheet," and then it appeared on the official final judgment for
fines and costs, signed by the trial judge.

3
minimum amount set by statute[, such as investigative costs provided for
in section 938.27(1),] will have to be requested—and established—by the
State."); Allen v. State, 421 So. 3d 708, 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 2025)
(providing that discretionary investigative costs must be supported by
competent, substantial evidence and must be orally pronounced at
sentencing); Peterson v. State, 395 So. 3d 543, 545-56 (Fla. 4th DCA
2024) (holding that investigative costs were not authorized where "the
State presented no evidence supporting th[e] award, including a request
from the applicable police department"); McCarthy v. State, 893 So. 2d
689, 690 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005) (directing that investigative costs be
stricken because "neither the State Attorney's office nor the Daytona
Beach Police Department requested or documented their costs").
Accordingly, the $200 investigative costs must be stricken from the final
judgment for fines and costs.
Judgment and sentence affirmed; final judgment for fines and costs
reversed and remanded with instructions.
NORTHCUTT and KHOUZAM, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.