Aaron William Gilbreth, a Florida resident, recently won a partial victory in his appeal concerning the costs associated with his misdemeanor convictions. The District Court of Appeal of Florida issued its ruling on July 1, 2026, in case number 2D2025-2048. This ruling is significant for individuals facing similar legal challenges regarding the imposition of prosecution costs in misdemeanor cases.
Gilbreth was appealing his judgment and sentences for two misdemeanor charges: resisting an officer without violence and criminal mischief. The appeal stemmed from the trial court's decision to impose prosecution costs that Gilbreth argued were improperly assessed. This case highlights the importance of proper legal procedures when determining costs associated with criminal cases.
The parties involved in the case were Aaron William Gilbreth, the appellant, and the State of Florida, the appellee. Gilbreth had entered guilty pleas to both charges in a single case, resulting in a sentence of twelve months of probation for the first charge and a concurrent six-month probation for the second. At the time of sentencing, the trial court orally imposed standard court costs and costs of prosecution. However, the written judgment later reflected two separate $50 prosecution assessments, totaling $100.
After the sentencing, Gilbreth filed a motion under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), arguing that the trial court had improperly imposed the cost of prosecution twice. The trial court did not issue a written order addressing this motion, which led to it being deemed denied. The case eventually reached the District Court of Appeal after appellate counsel initially filed an Anders brief, which the court struck.
The court ruled on the matter, stating, "The State's concession of error is well taken." This means that the State of Florida agreed with Gilbreth's argument regarding the improper assessment of prosecution costs. The court noted that under section 938.27(8) of the Florida Statutes, prosecution costs for misdemeanors must be set at a minimum of $50 per case unless there is proof of higher costs incurred. The court found that there was no evidence in the record indicating that the State sought prosecution costs above the statutory minimum or that the trial court made the necessary findings to support a higher amount.
The ruling emphasized that the trial court's failure to announce a higher amount at sentencing meant that the prosecution costs should be reduced to the mandatory minimum. The court referenced a previous case, Kee v. State, which supported this conclusion. In its decision, the court affirmed Gilbreth's judgment and sentences but reversed the denial of his motion to correct the sentencing error. The court instructed the trial court to strike one of the duplicative $50 cost-of-prosecution assessments.
This ruling has implications for future cases involving the assessment of prosecution costs. It clarifies that trial courts must follow proper procedures when imposing costs and that defendants have the right to challenge improper assessments. The decision reinforces the requirement for courts to provide clear findings when imposing costs above the statutory minimum.
Going forward, this ruling may impact other defendants facing similar circumstances in Florida. It sets a precedent that could influence how courts handle prosecution costs in misdemeanor cases, ensuring that defendants are not unfairly charged. The decision also highlights the importance of legal representation in navigating the complexities of the criminal justice system.
As for what happens next, it is unclear if the State of Florida will appeal this decision. The court's ruling provides clear guidance on the issue of prosecution costs, but further legal developments could arise. There are no related cases pending at this time, but the implications of this ruling may resonate in future legal challenges regarding prosecution costs in Florida.