Summary
The Sixth District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed Damerius Kashon Hart’s judgment and sentence following convictions for two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child between twelve and sixteen. The court held that the trial court properly imposed $4,025 in extradition costs under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes, despite an erroneous statutory reference on the assessment form, and rejected Hart’s remaining arguments without discussion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court was authorized to impose extradition costs as costs of prosecution under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2022).
- Whether the erroneous reference to section 941.06 as the statutory authority invalidated the $4,025 extradition-cost assessment.
Holdings
- Extradition costs are costs of prosecution authorized under section 938.27(1), Florida Statutes (2022), and may therefore be imposed against a convicted person when authorized by the statute.
- The erroneous reference to section 941.06 as the statutory authority did not invalidate the $4,025 assessment because the assessment was accurately described as a cost of extradition and the trial court was not required to cite a specific statute when the amount and description of the assessment were provided.
Key quotations
“Because the trial court’s imposition of $4,025 is described as “Cost of Extradition,” it is not rendered invalid by the erroneous reference to section 941.06 as “Statutory Authority.””
Factual background
A jury found Damerius Kashon Hart guilty of two counts of lewd and lascivious battery on a child between the ages of twelve and sixteen. The trial court imposed a $4,025 assessment described as a cost of extradition, while the judgment form incorrectly identified section 941.06 as the statutory authority.
Procedural history
Following a jury verdict finding Hart guilty as charged, the Circuit Court for Osceola County entered judgment and sentence, including a $4,025 assessment described as a cost of extradition. Hart appealed to the Sixth District Court of Appeal, which rejected his challenges and affirmed.