Beauty v. State
The Fifth District affirmed imposition of the statutory minimum cost of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, even though the State did not specifically request that cost at sentencing. The court reaffirmed its prior holding in O'Malley v. State that imposition of the statutory minimum is mandatory regardless of a specific state request.
Key facts
- Defendant Beauty was convicted in trial court and sentenced to include costs of prosecution under section 938.27(8), Florida Statutes, even though the State did not make a specific request for this cost at sentencing.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the imposition of the statutory minimum cost of prosecution, holding that such costs are mandatory under the statute regardless of whether the State specifically requested them.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
This case confirms the Fifth District's position, aligned with the First District, that the mandatory minimum cost of prosecution under section 938.27(8) can be imposed without a specific state request, in direct… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.