LARONALD D. SPEAR, v. STATE OF FLORIDA
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
LARONALD D. SPEAR,
Appellant,
CASE NO. 1D12-1471
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA,
Appellee.
_____________________________/
Opinion filed January 16, 2013.
An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County.
James C. Hankinson, Judge.
Melissa J. Ford, Assistant Regional Conflict Counsel, and Sheila Callahan,
Assistant Conflict Counsel, Office of Criminal Conflict and Civil Regional
Counsel, Region One, Tallahassee, for Appellant.
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney
General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM.
We grant the State’s motion for rehearing, withdraw our original opinion in
this case, and sua sponte consider the case en banc. This case addresses whether
the $20 court cost imposed for crime stoppers programs in criminal cases pursuant
to section 938.06(1), Florida Statutes (2010), is mandatory regardless of whether
any fine is imposed. Prior to July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) provided in part, “In
addition to any fine prescribed by law for any criminal offense, there is hereby
assessed as a court cost an additional surcharge of $20 on such fine, which shall be
imposed by all county and circuit courts and collected by the clerks of the courts
together with such fine.” Based upon this version of the statute, we issued several
opinions holding that it was error to impose the $20 cost where no fine was
imposed or where a fine was wrongfully imposed. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 100
So. 3d 245, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Chamblee v. State, 93 So. 3d 1184, 1186
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Clavelle v. State, 80 So. 3d 456, 457 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012);
Mallory v. State, 70 So. 3d 738, 738 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Pullam v. State, 55 So.
3d 674, 675 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011); Lang v. State, 856 So. 2d 1105, 1106 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2003).
The Legislature amended section 938.06(1) effective July 1, 2010, to
provide that “[i]n addition to any fine prescribed by law, when a person is
convicted of any criminal offense, the county or circuit court shall assess a court
cost of $20.”
Thereafter, we issued opinions in seven cases, which were
consolidated for briefing purposes and where the State conceded error on the
subject, striking the $20 cost imposed pursuant to the 2010 version of section
2
938.06 because no fine was imposed. See Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 237, 238 (Fla.
1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 236, 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v.
State, 98 So. 3d 235, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 234, 235
(Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 233, 234 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012);
Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d 232, 233 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012); Pruitt v. State, 98 So. 3d
231, 232 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012). In doing so, we cited to our Pullam opinion, which
addressed section 938.06 prior to the amendment.
One day after the Pruitt
decisions were issued, we set forth as dicta in Sanders v. State, 101 So. 3d 373, 377
n.3 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), that effective July 1, 2010, section 938.06(1) was
amended to provide that the $20 assessment for the Crime Stoppers Trust Fund
was a mandatory cost rather than an additional surcharge on any fine imposed.
Reconsidering this issue en banc, we recede from our Pruitt decisions with
respect to section 938.06 and determine that the reasoning as set forth in Sanders is
correct. Although both versions of the statute include the language “[i]n addition
to any fine prescribed by law,” the only prerequisite to the imposition of the $20
cost following the 2010 amendment is that a person be convicted of any criminal
offense. No longer is the cost considered “an additional surcharge . . . on such
fine” as was the case prior to the amendment. Therefore, the $20 cost must be
3
imposed when a person is convicted of a criminal offense whether or not a fine is
also imposed. Appellant’s judgments and sentences are hereby AFFIRMED. ∗
BENTON, C.J., WOLF, DAVIS, VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, LEWIS,
ROBERTS, CLARK, WETHERELL, ROWE, MARSTILLER, RAY, SWANSON,
and MAKAR, JJ., CONCUR.
∗
We note appellate counsel’s concession that the trial court did not err in
adjudicating Appellant guilty of a violation of section 893.13, Florida Statutes.
See State v. Adkins, 96 So. 3d 412 (Fla. 2012).
4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.