Young v. State of Florida

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
SECOND DISTRICT
ANTONIO JAMAL YOUNG,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 2D2024-2323
December 19, 2025
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Robin F. Fuson,
Judge.
Blair Allen, Public Defender, and Caroline Joan S. Picart, Assistant
Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.
James Uthmeier, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, Judge.
Antonio Young's counsel has filed an Anders1 brief in this
misdemeanor case identifying two minor sentencing errors purportedly
requiring correction: the trial court's imposition of a $12 probation
service fee and a $50 charge for costs of prosecution. The trial court
granted Young's motion to correct these errors, but the record does not
indicate that an amended judgment and sentence was entered.
1 Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967).

2
We have long recognized that the erroneous imposition of costs may
be addressed in an Anders brief. See, e.g., Crowder v. State, 313 So. 3d
704, 706 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citing Meier v. State, 912 So. 2d 1277,
1278 n.2 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005)). We agree that the trial court correctly
granted Young's motion as to the $12 probation service fee because
section 948.09(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2024), did not authorize the
imposition of that fee and because the order of probation separately
requires that Young pay $40 monthly plus a surcharge for the costs of
probation. In light of the supreme court's recent decision in Parks v.
State, 411 So. 3d 414 (Fla. 2025), however, which disapproved our
decision in D.L.J. v. State, 331 So. 3d 227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), we
conclude that the court did not err in originally imposing $50 for the
costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes (2024),
regardless of whether the State made any such request.
We therefore remand for entry of an amended judgment and
sentence that deletes the $12 probation service fee but affirm the original
judgment and sentence in all other respects. See Johnson v. State, 354
So. 3d 598, 599 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (remanding for entry of amended
judgment and sentencing documents consistent with the prior grant of a
motion to correct sentencing error); Haddock v. State, 255 So. 3d 994,
994 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (same).
Affirmed and remanded.
KELLY and LABRIT, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.