Lavelle Dontavious Cunningham v. State of Florida

D ISTRICT C OURT OF A PPEAL O F T HE STATE OF F LORIDA
FOURTH DISTRICT
LAVELLE DONTAVIOUS CUNNINGHAM,
Appellant,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
No. 4D2025-2222
[March 25, 2026]
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.
Lucie 	County; 	Michael 	C. 	Heisey, 	Judge; 	L.T. 	Case 	No.
562023CF001458AXXXXX.
Daniel 	Eisinger, 	Public 	Defender, 	and 	Devin 	Johnson, 	West 	Palm
Beach, for appellant.
James 	Uthmeier, 	Attorney 	General, 	Tallahassee, 	and 	Kimberly 	T.
Acuña, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.
ON CONFESSION OF ERROR
PER CURIAM .
The only issue raised on appeal is appellant’s challenge to the denial of
his motion to correct sentencing error. 	Appellant claims costs and fees
imposed in the written final judgment are duplicative and conflict with the
trial court’s oral pronouncement. The state concedes error, and we agree.
As such, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the duplicative
assessments.
Pursuant to a plea for violation of community control, appellant agreed
to assessments of $100 for cost of prosecution, a $100 public defender fee,
and a $50 public defender application fee. 	The trial court orally imposed
these 	amounts 	at 	sentencing. 	However, 	the 	written 	final 	judgment
imposed duplicative costs and fees, including two assessments for cost of
prosecution in the amounts of $200 and $100, two $100 assessments for
public 	defender 	fee, 	and 	two 	$50 	assessments 	for 	public 	defender
application fee. 	The trial court denied appellant’s motion to correct

2
sentencing error, finding that the costs and fees were not duplicative but
rather included previous costs and fees from the original sentencing that
were still outstanding.
We 	agree 	with 	the 	state’s 	confession 	of 	error 	and 	find 	that 	the
duplicative costs and fees must be stricken. 	In denying the motion to
correct sentencing error, the trial court found that the written judgment
incorporated previous costs and fees from the original sentencing order
that were still outstanding. 	However, the court in Chivese v. State, 295
So. 3d 324 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020), rejected this argument. 	In Chivese, the
trial court entered two separate costs judgments: the first when probation
was originally imposed and the second when probation was revoked. 	Id.
at 326. 	In the second cost judgment, the trial court included the amount
from the original cost judgment. 	Id. 	The Fifth District found that the
original cost of prosecution and public defender fees had to be stricken
because they were “duplicative of charges imposed in the initial cost
judgment entered in the case, which remains outstanding.” 	Id. 	Like in
Chivese, here the inclusion of previously imposed fees and costs was
improper.
Additionally, 	the 	trial 	court’s 	written 	judgment, 	which 	imposed
duplicative assessments, conflicted with its oral pronouncement, which
did not impose duplicative assessments. 	“Where a trial court’s written
sentencing 	order 	conflicts 	with 	the 	oral 	pronouncement, 	the 	oral
pronouncement controls.” 	Santiago v. State, 133 So. 3d 1159, 1167 (Fla.
4th DCA 2014).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to strike the $200
cost of prosecution, one of the $100 public defender fees, and one of the
$50 public defender application fees. 	Appellant need not be present for
this correction. 	See Stephenson v. State, 368 So. 3d 5, 6 (Fla. 4th DCA
2023).
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
L EVINE , C ONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.
* 	* 	*
Not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing.